Picture this: It's a sunny day. Our honorable judges, donning their robes, sit sipping chamomile tea, discussing life post-retirement. But wait, a recent turn of events from the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice, presented in the oh-so-meticulously-named 133rd report on “Judicial Process and Reforms,” suggests they might have to hang around the courtrooms a tad longer!

The Committee, probably after binge-watching some health documentaries, passionately argues that since people are generally living longer thanks to medical advancements, why shouldn’t our judges enjoy the same perks? Why wrap up a game in the third quarter when you can play till the end? They assert, “It's high time the Constitution's relevant articles be tweaked so the age of retirement for our Supreme Court and High Court judges gets a little lift.”

However, and here's the zinger, these guys are proposing a deal: “If you’re going to be in the game longer, show us you’ve still got the moves!” That's right. Before a judge gets an "extra time" stamp on their judicial careers, they'll need a performance appraisal. How's your health? Did you misplace your gavel? And most importantly, how's the quality of your judgements? The Supreme Court collegium might just develop a new app called "JudgeRate" or something to ensure judges are still on top of their game.

Throwback to 2019: The then Chief Justice of India (CJI), maybe while daydreaming about extended golfing sessions, proposed to stretch out the retirement horizon for High Court judges. However, as of this soap opera's latest episode, the Government sent a pretty clear RSVP: "Thanks, but no thanks." They're just not feeling the idea of extending the retirement party invitations for High Court judges.

Why, you ask? The Government reckons that making High Court gigs last longer might reduce their allure. If you're a High Court judge, thinking about the glamorous world of the Supreme Court, and suddenly realize you have to stick around in your current job even longer, well, it might just feel like being promised a dessert and then told you need to finish more veggies.

Moreover, the Government subtly hints that there might just be no room at the inn. If judges stay around longer, where would we slot in the young, enthusiastic judicial officers and advocates waiting in the wings? Imagine a courtroom version of a reality show where only the most deserving get the coveted black robes.

But the Committee wasn’t going to leave without playing their final card. They pressed that having seasoned judges around for a more extended period is like having a grandmaster at a chess tournament. Their rich experience is invaluable, and they could contribute even more to the judicial system, potentially reducing those never-ending case backlogs. After all, experience does count, especially when you're deciding the fate of litigants who come before the courts, hopeful and prayerful.

In essence, it's a classic tug-of-war: Should they stay or should they go? And while we wait for the verdict, grab some popcorn. This courtroom drama is getting juicier by the minute!

Let's roll out the world map and embark on a 'Retirement Age Tour'! Globetrotting to see when Supreme Court and Federal judges in other countries hang up their robes, the Committee found a trend. Most developed countries, with swanky hospitals and roads smoother than a chocolate mousse, have set the magic number at around 70 years for the lower judiciary. Meanwhile, for Supreme Court and Federal Judges, it's a robust 75, and sometimes, they've thrown away the age book altogether! "Why have an expiry date on justice?" seems to be the sentiment.

Moving along, the Committee gave a firm nod of approval to the government's viewpoint, which goes something like, "If we're upping the retirement age, we better make sure these judges are as transparent as grandma's crystal vase and as accountable as a teenager explaining a dent on the family car." They emphasize that if you're going to stick around longer, there better not be any pending case cobwebs lurking in the courtroom corners.

But, here's the twist: The government is slightly paranoid that if they hand over the age-extension candy to the judges, every civil servant will line up with their hands out, chanting, "Me next!" The Committee, in their wisdom, responded with, "Hold your horses! You can't compare judges to every Tom, Dick, or Harry in the government." They pointed out that in many states, the age for retirement has already been increased for professions like doctors and professors. I mean, who wouldn't want a professor with silver hair teaching Quantum Physics or a wise old doctor with a Dumbledore vibe?

Speaking of wisdom, MP P. Wilson dropped a knowledge bomb. He mused, “If Supreme Court judges, post retirement, can efficiently function as Chairmen and Members of crucial Tribunals (where, by the way, the workload can rival that of a packed restaurant on a Saturday night), why assume they'd suddenly become less effective as a Judge of the Supreme Court when they hit the big 7-0?”

But then, another plot twist: While pushing for the increased age of retirement, the Committee slipped in a little footnote. They've noticed a few side-eyes given to the post-retirement assignments handed out to judges. These roles, often in public-financed institutions, raise a few eyebrows and concerns about impartiality. The Committee, feeling the room's temperature, suggests that maybe, just maybe, with the extended judicial innings, it's time to reassess this practice. Cue dramatic courtroom music!

So, there we have it – an intricate tapestry of age, experience, international benchmarks, and the ever-present undercurrent of sarcasm. The gavel is yet to be banged, but till then, keep the judicial popcorn popping! This show is far from over.