New Delhi: The federal government’s high regulation officer on Thursday advisable a set tenure of three years for the Chief Justice of India.
Lawyer Common Okay.Okay. Venugopal, in his handle on the felicitation operate of the brand new Chief Justice S.A. Bobde, mentioned: “There must be a fixed term of minimum three years for the Chief Justice of India, which will allow them the time to bring substantial changes.”
“Today the tenure is set against their retirement… By the time they (the Chief Justice) decide to do something, they retire and also many are left with very little tenure to plan for some crucial reforms or changes… as they plan, the retirement day is there.”
The AG additionally insisted that the retirement age of judges should be raised. “Age difference between Supreme Court Judge and High Court Judge is 65 & 62. Judges retirement age should be around 70 years,” he urged.
In a response to Venugopal’s feedback, the Chief Justice mentioned the highest regulation officer ought to inform all this to the federal government. “You should tell this to your client… we are ready to work,” he mentioned.
The Chief Justice batted for introducing synthetic intelligence within the court docket administration system, as it could streamline many cumbersome processes within the judicial system. He mentioned the world is adopting these applied sciences, and subsequently we should always do the identical.
He additionally emphasised on the psychological well being of the judges, saying that the main target shouldn’t simply be on bodily well being however this too. The Chief Justice insisted that it’s important to take away the stigma hooked up to the psychological well being, and efforts must be made to supply skilled assist, including that these reforms will assist each judges and attorneys.
Chief Justice Bobde additionally burdened entry to inexpensive authorized support, saying it’s a concern for the individuals. He additionally made an commentary on the follow of mentioning issues by attorneys earlier than the superior courts, saying that at lot of occasions, mentioning, which is request by a lawyer for pressing listening to on the matter earlier than the Chief Justice, may be very uninformed, and the attorneys mentioning the matter should not certified to handle superior courts on the problem of urgency.