Yes, for five years. A judge can serve up to 65 years. Here the amendment seeks to lay down that a judge who has served for 5 years continuously should not be employed in any specified in this amendment. This is in my judgment a very healthy maxim. It has happened in many countries that a judge who has served for a term of 5 years or more has been shunted off to some executive job when his vies or independence of mind and judgment became a little too hot for the Executive. I think it was President Roosevelt in the U.S.A.-I do not recollect the occasion when be tried this method but it was in the thirties of this century when he found that the views of some Judges of the Supreme Court were unpalatable, he tried to get over that by appointing more Judges, so that he might get the required majority for that particular measure that he wanted to push through. This is one of the methods-to increase the number of Judges who might favour a particular view. Because you will remember that the Supreme Court in our country will have to arbitrate and adjudicate upon disputes-constitutional disputes between the Centre and the Units as well as between unit and unit. The Executive is interested in many of these questions and it is very likely-more often than not-that a particular matter which is coming up before the Supreme Court may be such vital importance and interest to the President or the Executive that they might like the Supreme Court to give a particular decision upon that matter. They may find to their chagrin, to their discomfiture that the Supreme Court is not inclined that way and one of the methods may be to see that the inconvenient judges are shunted off to some less inconvenient positions. A Judge is after all human, and temptations such as Ambassadorships.
