In a landmark decision, the Court of Appeals has dealt a blow to three elderly jurists who sought to challenge the mandatory retirement age of 76, as set out in an 1869 law. The judges, who are all over 76, argued that the law violates their constitutional rights, but the court has ruled against them. The 1869 law has been in place for over 150 years, and its provisions have been widely applied in the country's judiciary. The ruling has sparked debate about the balance between age and experience in the judicial system, and whether mandatory retirement ages are still relevant in the modern era.
The Court of Appeals shot down a bid by three elderly jurists challenging an 1869 law that sets the mandatory retirement age at 76, saying it violates their rights.
