Freddy A. Paniagua in Vol.13 No.3 of the Open Journal of Political Science issued in July, 2023 observed: “In early societies, the elderly were respected and revered. Many pre-industrial societies observed gerontocracy, a type of social structure wherein the power is held by a society’s oldest members. In some countries today, the elderly still have influence and power and their vast knowledge is respected. Reverence for the elderly is still a part of some cultures, but it has changed in many places because of social factors.”
Contrastingly, ‘ageism’ is defined as stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination against people on the basis of their age (WHO, 2017).
Dr. Robert Butler coined the term “Ageism” in the year 1968, while defining it as discrimination (when someone acts on a prejudice) based on age.
Relatedly, Patricia Brownell in her Book chapter in “Aging, Ageism and Abuse” (2010) noted that ageism exists in all cultures.
Paniagua (2023) further remarked that: “Ageist attitudes and biases based on stereotypes reduce elderly people to inferior or limited positions and can reduce their quality of life as they internalize these false stereotypes.”
Incidentally, considering the opinion of Mihir R published in the Supreme Court Observer: “Article 124 of the Constitution of India, 1950 caps the age of retirement for Supreme Court judges at age 65. So, each Chief Justice’s tenure begins from the date of his/her elevation to the date of his/her retirement. As a result, the tenure of each CJI is predicated upon their age at the time of their appointment to the Supreme Court, their rank in seniority and their date of elevation as the Chief Justice.”
Interestingly, as per the age prescriptions in the Telangana Public Employment (Regulation of Age of Superannuation) Act, 1984, Section 3 stipulates: Section 3. Age of superannuation.
“(1) Every Government employee, not being a workman and not belonging to Last Grade Service shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of the month in which, he attains the age of fifty eight years.”
According to Olive Board:
Consequently, the Constitutional Mandate prescribes that the President of India would need to have a minimum age limit of 35 years while there exists no maximum age limit.
Notwithstanding the fact that some of the most rational Judicial minds in the Country are precluded by the very Constitution under which they serve, they retire upon attaining the age of 65, the Constitutional position of the Prime Minister of India prescribes no maximum age limit for holding office.
According to Allen (2016):
“Ageism not only can be used to discriminate against the elderly across many areas in society (e.g., job-seeking behavior, housing, banking, health care) but this phenomenon is also associated with the development of chronic physical and mental health conditions in older adults.”
During an interview conducted by Kirsten Weir (2023) with Becca Levy, professor of epidemiology at Yale School of Public Health, Levy reported that she found information that not only contradicted the negative stereotype against older adults but also highlighted a strength that comes with aging. For example, regarding the stereotype that people become less creative as they get older, Becca Levy found a host of examples of artists and musicians who became more creative and more generative later in life.
Paniagua (2023) also detected another example which supported Becca Levy’s report, which entails that all congress men and women at the age of 65 and older in the U.S. 118th Congress are also very creative, but not particularly affected by the “ageism” factor each time they decide to return to the U.S. Congress for another term.
According to (Retd.) LT GEN Bhopinder Singh in his recent Article titled: ‘The Bogey of ‘Ageism’ in Indian Politics’ published in ‘The Quint’: ‘Age’ is a much-bandied weapon in political arguments, though only half-sincere.
As one grand patriarch of Indian Politics (Sharad Pawar) was seemingly outsmarted by his ‘own’ (nephew in this case), the wise words of Christopher Hitchens came haunting back, “It will happen to all of us that at some point you’ll be tapped on the shoulder and told “ not just that the party is over “ but slightly worse; the party’s going on, but you have to leave”.
Perhaps a countenance to ageism would help to settle the dilemma which ensues when a majority of Constitutional Positions have to retire at the age of 65 while only a handful few coveted positions remains unrestricted by the progression of age into experiential maturity.
Resultantly, experiential knowledge as per Philip Burnard, in his book: Counselling Skills for Health Professionals (2005) would represent the knowledge gained through experience, as opposed to a priori (before experience) knowledge: it can also be contrasted both with propositional (textbook) knowledge, and with practical knowledge.
Hence, in the understanding in the mind of a common man of general prudence, could it be surmised that the Prime Minister of the Country who is predominantly an elected representative of his respective Constituency before he enjoys the majority approval of his cabinet of ministers would be perceived as a Constutional funtionary with immense ‘Experiential Wisdom’ which permits him to continue in the position sans an upper age limit, so that his charisma could defy ageism, while on the other hand the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court who has been elevated to the Judicial position by the Colleguim System would have to mandatorily retire at the age of 65 years after having delivered some of the most instrumental judgments on the interpretation of Constitutional Rights and which would ultimately serve as legal precedent for a long time to come.
Is there an ethical validity to the intelligible differentia on age-limits in holding office to Constitutional positions?
