Supreme Court: Can’t fix judges’ ‘cooling off’ period

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to fix any “cooling off” period for judges to take up government assignments after retirement, an issue which has been widely debated after former Chief Justice of India P. Sathasivam took governorship soon after his tenure ended.

A bench headed Chief Justice H.L. Dattu dismissed a Public Interest Litigation seeking its direction for stipulating cooling off period for retired judges and restraining governments from appointing retired judges of the Supreme Court and high courts to any post without the consultation and concurrence of the Chief Justice of India or the Chief Justices of the high courts.

Interestingly, Justice Dattu’s predecessor, Justice R.M. Lodha, on his last day in office, had said that there should be a cooling off period of two years for judges and said that he won’t take any government assignment during the period.

The court was hearing a PIL filed by one Mohammed Ali who pleaded that it is necessary to pass order regarding this to protect the integrity of judiciary.

He submitted that there is no provision as such in the Constitution as constitution maker had not expected that retired Chief Justice of India would accept any post offered by the government.

Supreme Court refuses to stay order banning animal sacrifice

The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to stay Himachal Pradesh High Court order to put an end to the age-old practice of sacrificing animals during religious ceremonies in the hill state but agreed to hear an appeal challenging the verdict.

A bench headed by Chief Justice H.L. Dattu issued notice to state government and sought it’s response on the appeal which contended that the HC erred in banning sacrifices in temples and in buildings adjoining places of worship.

The HC had banned the sacrifice, saying they “cannot be permitted to be killed in a barbaric manner to appease Gods.”

“No person throughout the state shall sacrifice any animal in any place of public religious worship, including all land and buildings near such places of religious worship which are ordinarily connected to religious purposes,” it had said.

Maheshwar Singh, a local legislator, approached the apex court challenging the High Court order.