With regard to the provision for compulsory retirement at sixty, I think this will not be a very good thing. I think longevity and effective age would increase in our country. Judges of the High Courts are not ordinary men. They are selected from the best legal talents and they have to keep in touch with legal literature. I do not think that a Judge would have spent his useful life at sixty. It is provided that he will retire at sixty unless he is appointed a Judge of the Supreme Court in which case he will retire at sixty five. He will not be able to plead before any court or before any authority after his retirement under article 196. The effect of fixing the age limit at sixty and article 196 would not be wholesome. In England there is of course a provision that a High Court Judge is not entitled to practice in any Court there. But there the age limit is seventy-two and than even after seventy two distinguished Judges are appointed as Law Lords and they hold office as Member of the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords, as Lords in Appeal, etc., and they hold office for life. So they have a large span of useful life both as a Judge and later on as Law Lords. But after seventy-two they are working in an honorary capacity. There are these prospects before an English Judge but there is no prospect before an Indian Judge. After a Judge retires at sixty, he will be incapable of practicing in any Court, practically incapable of holding any office under the Government because that would be wrong in principle. He will thus be a political untouchable of the worst type. I submit, Sir, that the age limit should be considered at a suitable opportunity whenever it comes. With these few words, I support the article with the amendments proposed by Professor Shibban Lal Saksena.
