If this trend of making decisions before retirement remains unchecked, it calls for introspection by constitutional institutions.

It is essential to prioritize not the number of decisions, but their quality, ethics, and long-term impact in the executive, judiciary, and legislature-Advocate Kishan Sanmukhdas Bhawnani,Gondia, Maharashtra

Gondia – Globally, in democratic governance systems, the exercise of power is bound by time, rules, and accountability. Whether it is the executive, the judiciary,or the legislature the objective of every institution is to make fair, balanced, and prudent decisions in the public interest. However, a worrying trend has emerged over the years: passing an unusually large numberof orders judgments and policy decisions just before retirement or shortly before the end of a term.I Advocate Kishan Sanmukhdas Bhawnani, Gondia, Maharashtra, believe that this trend is not limited to India alone, but is being seriously debated in many democratic systems worldwide. In India, this trend is no longer confined to administrative experience or anecdotal evidence, but the Supreme Court itself,the highest constitutional institution, has publicly expressed concern about it. This situation not only raises questions about institutional ethics but also casts deep doubt on the validity, impartiality, and long-term impact of the decisions. Retirement Syndrome in the Executive – A Sudden Flood of Administrative Decisions


India’s executive structure, from the village-level Patwari office to the ministerial level, is based on a complex bureaucratic system. In this system, many files, proposals and decisions remain pending for years. However, it is often observed that in the final days before an officer’s retirement, the same files that remained undecided for years are suddenly processed with extraordinary speed. This situation raises several questions. Was there a lack of decision-making ability earlier? Is there any kind of pressure, corruption,vested interest, or haste behind these decisions now?Or is it assumed that accountability will be limited after retirement? Or is the primary reason the extensive arrangement of favors and benefits to secure one’s retirement life? According to global principles of administrative ethics, the quality of decisions should be independent of time, not driven by the date of service termination.


Friends,if we talk about the “speed governance” in the final days, from the Patwari (village revenue officer) to the ministry, the Patwari’s role is extremely crucial, especially at the village level, in matters like land records, mutations, and land allotment. If decisions are made rapidly just before retirement in such cases, their social and legal implications persist for decades.The same situation isobserved at the district level, state secretariats, and central ministries.International administrative studies show that last-minute decision-making multiplies the chances of corruption, favoritism, and future disputes. Therefore, in developed countries, the decision-making powers are often limited or subjected to collective review some time before the end of service.


Friends, if we talk about the growing trend of “last-over justice” in the judiciary, the judiciary is considered the most ethical and impartial pillar of democracy. Judges’ decisions not only resolve legal disputes but also set moral direction for society. In such a scenario, if the tendency to deliver an unusual number of judgments just before retirement increases in the judiciary, it becomes a matter of grave concern. Recently, the Supreme Court made a very important observation in this context, stating that some judges are delivering judgments like hitting sixes in the last over of a cricket match. This observation is not just a metaphor,but a profound constitutional warning. Supreme Court’s observation: A moment of judicial introspection. The bench of Chief Justice of India Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi expressed clear disapproval of this trend.This observation was made during the hearing of a petition filed by a district judge from Madhya Pradesh, who was suspended just 10 days before his retirement. The bench noted that some judges are increasingly exhibiting a tendency to pass a large number of orders just before retirement, which is unfortunate for the judicial system. The court also clarified that such haste can affect the quality of justice and institutional credibility.Supreme Court’s stance, Discipline versus Sympathy: The Supreme Court, while refusing to directly intervene in the matter, directed the judge to approach the High Court.This decision itself sends a message that institutional discipline takes precedence over individual circumstances. Self-regulation of the judiciary is as essential for democracy as that of the executive or legislature. This stance also indicates that the Supreme Court is now not only monitoring external institutions but is also identifying weaknesses within its own system and taking steps towards reform.


Friends, if we consider the issue of last- minute legislation in the legislature and global experiences, this trend is not limited to the judiciary or the executive. It is often observed in the legislature as well, where governments rapidly pass ordinances, amendments, and bills before their term ends. Internationally, this is known as “lame-duck legislation,” which has faced serious criticism in the US, Europe, and Latin America. Such laws are often passed without sufficient debate, parliamentary scrutiny, and public deliberation, leading to constitutional disputes and social unrest later on.


Friends, if we consider the question of constitutional morality and institutional credibility, the Indian Constitution not only distributes powers but also expects constitutional morality.Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar clearly stated that the Constitution will only survive if those who implement it are moral. This flood of decisions before retirement challenges that very morality. If the timing of decision- making is influenced by personal future, promotions, or a desire to avoid accountability,then that decision, even if legally valid, becomes morally questionable.


Friends, if we consider the international comparison: what is the world doing? Countries like Britain, Canada, Australia, and Germany have provisions for a cooling-off period or limited authority for senior officials and judges. In many countries, a special review is mandatory for policy or major decisions taken in the last six months before retirement. India also needs serious institutional reforms in this direction so that decisions are system- centric, not individual-centric.


Towards a solution: Strict action and systemic reforms. Moral appeals alone are not sufficient to curb this growing trend. The executive, judiciary, and legislature—all three must develop clear rules, transparent processes,and accountability mechanisms. Automatic review of major decisions taken before retirement,a collective decision- making system, and public transparency can be effective measures. Therefore, if we study and analyze the entire description above, we will find that democracy is not about the last over, but about a long innings democracy is not about the final act of a single individual, but is based on the long-term credibility of institutions. If this tendency of making decisions before retirement remains unchecked, it will weaken the very soul of the governance system.The Supreme Court’s observation is not limited to just one case, but is a call for introspection for all constitutional institutions.The time has come to prioritize not the number of decisions, but their quality, ethics, and long-term impact, so that democracy is won not by last-minute sixes, but by balanced and responsible play.

-Compiled by: Author – Tax Expert Columnist Litterateur International Writer Thinker Poet sangeet madhyama CA (ATC) Advocate Kishan Sanmukhdas Bhawnani Gondia Maharashtra 9284141425