A week might be a long time in politics, but not for a high court chief justice. The new chief justice of the Orissa high court, Bilal Nazki, will in fact serve for even less in this capacity — he will attend court for just three days before retiring. The appointment has surprised even the judge himself, who, reports suggest, was looking forward to an active retirement. He is scheduled to take charge on November 14, and retire on November 18.

The problems associated with such a short tenure stem from the nature of the job. As the first among equals, a high court chief justice gets to allot cases to certain judges. He also has vast supervisory powers over the lower judiciary, an administrative function that is often overshadowed by his judicial work. There is then status — some statutory posts can only be headed by a former high court chief justice. Appointing the chief justice to a high court is therefore a big deal. But the supervisory power that lies with a chief justice can only be effectively utilised if the incumbent is given a long stay. A week is neither here nor there; there is not even the pretence of being able to have an impact. Indeed, Judge Nazki will sit in court for a full three days.

This is of course no reflection on Justice Nazki, who has in the recent past asked stern questions of the Maharashtra government. But even he would agree that such a short tenure hardly does justice to the post. Given that legal reform is so high on this government’s agenda, and the higher judiciary itself is seized of its urgency, this sort of appointment to a powerful post highlights another area for attention. Since judicial appointments are such a sensitive issue, and worries of political interference so understandably rife, it is probably best that the higher judiciary formulate its own code. Judges should find a way of avoiding these fleeting appointments, and it is hoped that consensus on this issue emerges from within their own ranks.