DWIVEDI, J. :- I have read the judgments of my brothers G. C. Mathur and Gangeshwar Prasad, and I entirely agree with them that these petitions should be dismissed. As the matter is obviously of importance, I have thought it proper to deal with certain aspects in my own way.

2. The Constitutional History before January 26, 1950 is not relevant. It is not necessary to refer to it. By virtue of Article 376 (1) all pre-Constitution Judges became Judges under the Constitution. Their salaries, allowances, and rights in respect of leave of absence and pension are determined not by any pre-Constitution law of its own force but under Article 221 of the Constitution. So in respect of these matters there is no difference between pre-Constitution Judges and post-Constitution Judges. Both of them derive rights from one common source-Article 221.

3. Article 221 (1) settles the salary of the Judges, Article 221(2) deals with their allowances, and rights in respect of leave of absence and pension. Our immediate concern is with Article 221 (2). It reads:

"(2) Every Judge shall be entitled to such allowances and to such rights in respect of leave of absence and pension as may from time to time be determined by or under law made by Parliament and, until so determined, to such allowances and rights as are specified in the Second Schedule.

Provided that neither the allowances of a Judge nor his rights in respect of leave of absence or pension shall be varied to his disadvantage after his appointment."

4. Now I am aware of the ordinary rule of strict construction of a proviso. But I think that this proviso should receive a broad construction. I say this not merely because it is part of the Constitution which generally receives a liberal interpretation. I say this because it is designed to secure a historic social interest in a democratic society.

It is the social interest in the independence of Judges from men and their government. If the Judges are to dispense with fearless and favourless justice between man and man and between man and the Government, they should be kept above 'the throne' by granting them complete economic security. Their rights to economic advantages should be fixed definitely at the time of their call to office and should be insulated from subsequent impairment. (See Holdsworth: Constitutional Position of the Judges, (1932) 48 Law Quarterly Review, P. 25). When the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, purporting to act under the vague words of the National Economy Act, 1931, made a deduction from the salary of the Judges, Holdsworth warned:

"It is clear that if the English legal system is to develop in the future on the same high plane of intellectual excellence as it has developed in the past, the standard of the intellect of the bench must be maintained. And we should remember that, if this standard of intellectual excellence is not maintained, that law-abiding instinct, which is the life-blood of civilisation, will be imperilled". (Ibid, pp. 32-33).

5. The Law Commission of India, commenting upon the devaluation of the privileges of the Judges, said:

"It is necessary for all to realise that the role assigned to the judiciary under the Constitution is an essential one and that the high ideals, the attainment of which is aimed at by our Constitution, social and economic justice, equality, freedom and dignity of the individual, will be impossible of achievement unless the judiciary fearlessly discharges its. duties in every complaint of excess of power by the legislatures or the executive brought to its notice." (Report, Vol. I, P. 81).

6. Recognising the society-shaping role of the Judges the Constitution-makers gave them greater security by the proviso to Article 221 (2) than the Constitutions of U.S.A. and Australia. So the wide words of the proviso should receive their fullest scope.

7. According to the main part of clause (2) of Article 221 rights in respect of pension are to be determined by Parliament. Until Parliament has s