I am sorry Pandit Bhargava has not read the amendment moved by Professor Shah. It relates to Supreme Court as well and as it has been moved in that form, I am entitled-I hope by your leave, Sir,-to speak with regard to judges mentioned in this particular amendment. If a judge aspires to or is made to feel that he can look forward to a job as an Ambassador, High Commissioner, Minister and things like that-he is human and after all we have our own weaknesses and it is human enough to suppose that he will not be above temptation that may be placed in his way by the Executive-that may, I submit, affect his judicial independence and integrity and I am sure none of us in this House desires that such a consequence should ensue. Our judges wherever they might be-in the States or in the Centre-must be models of Judicial independence, fearless in their judgments and action without fear or favour of the State authorities or the Central authorities. If about Judges in harness or in office a condition like this is not laid down, then it is likely that we may not find them as strong, as true, as we would like then to be. I hope, however this bar will not apply to retired Judges. If they are competent for a particular job such as Ambassador, certainly they should be employed but for judges in harness I think it is very salutary that this House should lay down a principle of this nature-that so long as they are in service they should not aspire to any office in the Executive. I support the amendment moved by Professor Shah.
