lashminarayanan Advt Mhc: Sekar Please permit me to recollect the the words of justice K. Chandru in a matter where a retired judge of the SC accepted the office of inquiry officer. He opined : – 16.It will be interesting to quote from an article written by Mr.Sudarshan Agarwal, former Governor of Uttarakhand and Sikkim under the caption “Do retired SC Judges violate the spirit of Article 124?” and it is stated as follows :
Please permit me to recollect the the words of justice K. Chandru in a matter where a retired judge of the SC accepted the office of inquiry officer. He opined : –
16.It will be interesting to quote from an article written by Mr.Sudarshan Agarwal, former Governor of Uttarakhand and Sikkim under the caption “Do retired SC Judges violate the spirit of Article 124?” and it is stated as follows :
“The Supreme Court of India commands the highest respect both within the country and abroad. But one troubling feature that seems to take away the sheen is the post-retirement engagement of the Supreme Court Judges and Chief Justices in remunerative legal work. Article 124 of the Constitution forbids them to act or plead in any court or before any authority within the territory of India. It is a well-understood legal principle that what cannot be done directly, cannot also be done indirectly.
It is now a known fact that retired Judges and Chief Justices (exceptions apart) have been engaging in chamber practice and giving written opinions under their signature for a consideration, for use in any court or before any authority. This action violates the spirit of Article 124.
…………
These nagging questions must find an answer if we have to maintain the dignity and majesty of our judicial system. The danger to the judiciary which is responsible for preservation of the rule of law and which is the bedrock of democracy is all from within and not from outside.
Anguish and concern have been voiced by two former Chief Justices of India Justice M.N.Venkatachaliah and Justice J.S.Verma and Justice V.R.Krishna Iyer and some eminent lawyers like Mr Fali S.Nariman about this disturbing phenomenon in public fora and in articles touching upon the subject.”
[Bureaucracy Today December, 2012]
[2/12, 12:22] lashminarayanan Advt Mhc: 17.Having held an high office in the Supreme Court, to accept the assignment of conducting a domestic enquiry should have been avoided, since the very report given by such a person may put to criticism before the court at the instance of an aggrieved individual. Therefore, this court is not inclined to accept the enquiry report, besides the legal flaws which are already set out above
[2/12, 12:24] lashminarayanan Advt Mhc: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/156546389/
This is the case where it was held that a person who has held the high office should desist from putting himself in a situation where the orders / reports will be put to criticism
