An analysis of Supreme Court judges who have retired since 1999 reveals that at least 71 per cent took up some sort of assignment after demitting office. New Delhi: “Competitive impropriety”, “wrong precedent”, “improper shift” — the nomination of Justice Ranjan Gogoi to the Rajya Sabha in March last year, just four months after he retired as Chief Justice of India, raised several eyebrows. As a judge, Gogoi had presided over benches that handled several important cases, including the Ramjanmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute and the review petitions filed to seek an investigation into India’s purchase of 36 Rafale fighter jets from France. Gogoi’s appointment, however, is not the lone instance of Supreme Court judges taking up other jobs or assignments after retirement. An analysis of Supreme Court judges who have retired since 1999 — 103 in total (one of them, Justice M. Srinivasan, 63, passed away while in office, in February 2000) — reveals that at least 71 per cent (73 out of 103) took up some sort of assignment after demitting office. These assignments included appointments to tribunals, human rights commissions, government-appointed ad hoc commissions, court-appointed committees, water tribunals, and as lokayuktas or state-level anti-corruption officials. As many as 63 per cent (65 out of 103) took up an assignment within three years of retiring, with some assuming multiple positions one after the other. For this report, ThePrint has only considered the first post-retirement assignment taken up by these judges. The first post-retirement assignment of at least 60 per cent (62 out of 103) of the judges involved direct appointment by the government, or the government having a say in appointments. These include appointments to tribunals and bodies such as the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (NCDRC), the law commission, and human rights commissions, besides ad hoc commissions and committees, as well as posts like lokayukta. Out of the 62 judges, two — Justices P.P. Naolekar and B. Sudershan Reddy — were appointed as lokayuktas right after their retirement. For five others — Justices Shivraj V. Patil, N. Santosh Hegde, Lokeshwar Singh Panta, Cyriac Joseph and P.C. Ghose — lokpal/lokayukta posts came after other post-retirement posts. Then there’s former CJI Justice P. Sathasivam, who was appointed Governor of Kerala four months after he retired in 2014. To be sure, there is no provision in law that bars judges from taking up post-retirement assignments, and neither is there a cooling-off period. However, critics see immediate appointments after retirement as constituting a potential conflict of interest, pointing out that they create questions about judgments issued by judges while in service. Supporters of the idea, meanwhile, point out that certain subjects require handling by experts well-versed in the intricacies of Indian law, which makes judges indispensable to some appointments. Many former judges also emphasise the need to make a distinction between assignments allotted by courts and those involving the government, noting that the latter involves salary and perks paid by the government. When asked about the propriety of judges taking up post-retirement assignments, former Supreme Court judge Justice M.B. Lokur said the issue requires “detailed discussions and a policy decision that applies not only to judges but several other functionaries as well, such as election commissioners, vigilance commissioners, government servants etc”. At the end of the day, he said, it is a matter to be decided by each individual judge. “Speaking for myself, I belong to an old school and find it almost impossible to say ‘no’ to a suggestion, let alone a request, from the Chief Justice of India,” he said, talking about invitations to join commissions set up by the Supreme Court to take up different matters. “But I would draw the line and, most respectfully, say ‘no’ to an appointment to a tribunal or commission,” he added.