Sir, the two amendments are more or less the same in substance except that the amendment which I have moved expressly states the words that are to be eliminated. By the elimination of these words, what will happen is that every judge of a High Court shall hold office only until the age of sixty and the object of this amendment is merely to crystallise the status quo. Sir, I do not think it is necessary for me to adduce any arguments, particularly when the amendment is one that seeks to confirm the existing practice. But there are undoubtedly many and weighty arguments against the provision which my amendment has sought to delete, namely, “ or such higher age not exceeding sixty-five years as may fixed by law of the Legislature of the State“; and whether it is the Legislature of the State or Parliament that has to make a law varying the age of retirement of judges, it is an unwholesome and unhealthy provision in a Constitution. Many Members of this House will undoubtedly agree with me that it is best to fix a particular age, no matter what it is and not leave it to canvassing by interested parties, so that either a private members will introduce a Bill or pressure will be brought to bear on the Government of the day, asking them to make a change in the retiring age of the judges, because the people who are interested in raising the age limit have some influence in the quarters, who might perhaps conceivably make the Government move in that direction. The advantage, therefore, lies in the direction of fixing a particular age and not allowing any room for any private canvassing or private endeavour, so that people will know definitely that this cannot be changed except by an amendment of the Constitution. Sir, on the merits of the problem, I think is much to be said in favour of the age of sixty. It is undoubtedly true that in this country the age of expectation has risen considerably during the last twenty years. We do find in public life and amongst lawyers people who have passed the age of superannuation, fixed by this provision that I am moving, in full possession of their faculties, able to control the destinies of the country and very adequately at that; but Sir, these people are only exceptions to the rule and the rule happens to be in a country like ours probably in about 30 per cent of the cases perhaps, people who attain the age of sixty become unfit for active work. It is in my view safer to provide against even a fraction of the Judges of the High Court being incapable of doing their work rather than depend upon what happens outside the court and in public life where people who are well past the age of sixty are functioning very well and serving the country extraordinarily well. Sir, I feel that no further arguments are necessary in order to make the proposition which crystallises the status quo acceptable to the House; and if ten or fifteen years hence conditions of living in this country vary and medical science improves considerably so that senility can be avoided more or less in the generality of cases of people above the age of sixty, well probably that will be time enough for the Constitution to raise the age. I think for the time being the age of sixty is adequate and safe. for the same reasons I hope the House will accept my amendment.
(Amendment Nos. 2604 and 2605 were not moved.)