DRAFT CONSTITUTION 589
With regard to the question of the concurrence of the Chief Justice, it seems to me that those who advocate that proposition seem to rely implicitly both on the impartiality of the Chief Justice and the soundness of Ms judgment. I personally feel no doubt that the Chief Justice is a very eminent person. But after all, the Chief Justice is a man with all the failings, all the sentiments and all the prejudices which we as common people have; and I think, to allow the Chief Justice practically a veto upon the appointment of judges is really to transfer the authority to the Chief Justice which we are not prepared to vest in the President or the Government of the day. I therefore, think that that is also a dangerous proposition.
The second issue that has been raised by the different amendments moved to this article relates to the question of age. Various views have been expressed as to the age. There are some who think that the judges ought to retire at the age of sixty. Well, so far as High Courts are concerned, that is the present position. There are some who say that the constitution should not fix any age-limit whatsoever, but that the age-limit should be left to be fixed by Parliament by law. It seems lo me that that is not a proposition which can be accepted, because if the matter of age was left to Parliament to determine from time to time, no person could be found to accept a place on the Bench, because an incumbent before he accepts a place on the bench would like to know for how many years in the natural course of things, he could hold that office; and therefore, a provision with regard to age, I am quite satisfied, cannot be determined by Parliament from time to time, but must be fixed in the Constitution itself. The other view is that if you fix any age-limit what you are practicality doing is to drive away a man who notwithstanding the age that we have prescribed, viz., sixty-five, is hale and hearty, sound in mind and sound in body and capable for a certain number of years of rendering perfectly good service to the Slate. I entirely agree that sixty-five cannot always be regarded as the zero hour in a man’s intellectual ability. At the same time, I think Honourable Members who have moved amendments to this effect have forgotten the provision we have made in article 107, where we have provided that it should be open to the Chief Justice to call a retired Judge to sit and decide a particular case or cases. Consequently by the operation of article 107 there is less possibility, if I may put it, of our losing the talent of individual people who have already served on the Supreme Court. I therefore submit that the arguments or the fears that were expressed