Thread by @dikgaj

1) Many problems actually. Start with "no difficulty". For advocates, of necessity one side will fail even if seemingly having "no difficulty". If s/he fails too many times, s/he wont hv clients, and wont need to argue. No such market or otherwise fail-criteria to judge judges.

2) In fact judiciary is so far above critical assessment, that there is a de facto absence of answerability or assessment that is independent of themselves. The only body in a democratic state with power over others without any independent oversight or accountability to the ppl.

3) that "no difficulty" claim becomes even more of a self-certification for judges than for the advocate - whom, it is expected, that at the least market forces will assess whether she/he is really in "no difficulty" or otherwise.

4) while politicians can really stay on in political positions of the state beyond an official retirement age, the factor working in their favour is that they are subject to people's will, and can be removed from power by the people if judged to be in "difficulty".

5) in a democracy, no position that has power over people, but is unaccountable to the people and gets position without getting through the representation process - should be allowed to be indefinite or long in term. It develops an autonomy that subverts the power of the people.

6) limitation of term of those who dont come through the representative process of democracy and remain unaccountable to the ppl ensures that individual preferences, latent leanings that go against the people's interests or desires - don't get to impose themselves for long.

7) on a lighter note, things hv not moved a single bit from 24th May, 1949 - when Constituent Assembly debated, among other things -how "old men" like the members themselves were more energetic and more efficient than "young men". Here follows a few enlightening bits. RK Sidbha

Sidbha continues his inimitable logic:

Anathasayanam Ayiangar thinks by definition "maturity" comes by age alone, young men should not come in the way of "judges" and "do other things" - only "old men" must be chosen (only one member even mentioned women as a possibility - I will leave readers to find that gem)

Nehru is most revealing: his "method", the use of incomparables pretending they are equivalent, for ex Einstein=judge, placing his "experiments" had a similar direct handle on ppl's lives as that of a judge. He was never ashamed of his admiration of the British systems anyway:

Nehru is aware of the incomparables he is smoothly passing off as equivalent: where he shrewdly acknowledges formal possibility of accountability and removal by people for "old men" politicians themselves, but glosses over the fact that ppl will hv no such power on the judges:

Now follows the naysayers: Jaspat Kapoor is not convinced by the "raise", and in contrast to the others going gaga over British patriarchs, or US or Canadian lords, interestingly invokes the very Hindu concept of ashrams or stages of life:

while commenting on the desire for "raise", Satish Chandra acidly remarks on the "highest" - among countries - minimum age bar for membership of legislature, giving a sense of almost visceral distrust, envy or exclusion of "youth" from power,

Vishwanath Das counters the earlier logic of financial reasons given by pro-"raise" grp, by using their own repeated claims of the candidates being at peak performance and highest levels of earning - he also goes for the "Hindu" concept of Vanaprastha/Sannyas :

finally, it wd be an injustice to constituent assembly members not to cite B.Das - as contradiction to the much tomtom'd claim of constituent assembly debates supporting an implicit faith in the infallibility or suitability of judges. Not everyone shared in the adulation.