DOES THE INCLUSION OF AN EX-CJI INTO ANY HOUSE OF PARLIAMENT AFFECT THE MAINTAINED SYSTEM OF CHECKS
Background Context
The Indian Constitution ensures a separation of powers among the three organs of the state:
Legislature (Parliament)
Executive (Government)
Judiciary (Courts)
Each organ has its role with built-in checks to prevent misuse of power. The independence of the judiciary is crucial to maintain the balance.
Inclusion of an ex-CJI into Parliament: Potential Issues
An ex-Chief Justice of India is a former head of the judiciary—the apex court of India. The question is whether allowing such a person to join the legislature (either Lok Sabha or Rajya Sabha) compromises judicial independence or disrupts the checks and balances.
Key Concerns
Judicial Independence:
The judiciary’s independence might be perceived as compromised if a former Chief Justice immediately joins the legislature or executive, as it can raise doubts about impartiality in past judgments or future political bias.
Conflict of Interest:
A former Chief Justice may have previously ruled on matters involving the government or legislature. Joining Parliament may create a conflict, undermining public confidence.
Checks and Balances:
The system depends on independent functioning. Crossing over between branches too freely can blur the separation, weakening checks.
Constitutional Provisions & Practice
The Constitution does not explicitly prohibit an ex-CJI from becoming a member of Parliament.
Many retired judges, including Supreme Court judges, have occasionally entered politics or been appointed to other constitutional posts.
However, the system relies on conventions and safeguards to protect independence and prevent misuse.
Important Case Law and Opinions
S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981) 2 SCC 87 (Second Judges Case)
Although not directly about ex-CJIs entering Parliament, this case emphasized the importance of an independent judiciary free from executive or legislative influence.
The Supreme Court warned against political interference in judicial appointments and functioning.
Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab (1974) 2 SCC 831
The Supreme Court highlighted that the independence of the judiciary is a part of the basic structure of the Constitution.
Anything impairing this independence violates the Constitution.
Judicial Conventions and Norms
While no formal legal bar exists, it is a norm that judges, especially CJI, avoid active political roles after retirement to maintain the judiciary’s prestige and impartiality.
Immediate transition can raise doubts about the integrity of past decisions.
Comparative Perspective and Practical Reality
In other democracies, such as the United States, former judges rarely join legislative or executive roles to preserve judicial independence.
In India, some retired judges have taken positions like Governor, Chairman of Commissions, or even joined Parliament but typically not immediately after retirement.
Does it Affect the System of Checks?
In principle:
If an ex-CJI joins Parliament, it can affect the perception of judicial independence, potentially weakening public trust in the judiciary as a separate, neutral organ.
In practice:
No direct constitutional or legal bar means this does not automatically disrupt the system.
However, frequent or immediate post-retirement political engagement by judges, especially CJIs, may undermine the checks and balances by blurring lines between the judiciary and legislature.
Summary
The Constitution does not expressly forbid an ex-CJI from entering Parliament.
The independence of judiciary is a cornerstone of Indian democracy, protected as part of the basic structure.
The system of checks and balances can be weakened if the judiciary is seen as closely linked with the legislature due to former judges joining it.
Hence, it is generally accepted as a norm and good practice for former Chief Justices to refrain from immediate political roles to maintain the integrity and independence of the judiciary.
RELATED Blog
0 comments