[Answered] The appointment of ad-hoc judges under Article 224A of the Constitution has been suggested as a means to reduce the pendency of cases in Indian courts. Critically examine the viability of this measure in addressing the judicial backlog. What challenges could arise in its implementation?

The appointment of ad-hoc judges under Article 224A of the Constitution has been suggested as a means to address the rising backlog of cases in Indian High Courts.

Potential Benefits of Ad-Hoc Appointments

• Immediate Reduction in Pending Cases: High Courts currently have a backlog of approximately 62 lakh cases. Ad-hoc judges, with their experience, can help expedite hearings, particularly in criminal appeals, reducing undertrial incarceration.
• Utilization of Experienced Legal Minds: Retired judges possess strong technical expertise and judicial acumen. Their prior experience ensures efficiency in decision-making, requiring minimal training.
• No Impact on Regular Appointments: The process of appointing ad-hoc judges is independent of regular judicial appointments. Their tenure is limited (2-3 years), preventing interference with the elevation of serving judges.
• Minimal Political Sensitivity: As ad-hoc judges are not assigned politically sensitive cases, executive interference in their appointments is expected to be lower.

Challenges in Implementation

• Cumbersome Appointment Process: Requires approval from the executive, leading to potential delays. The need for pre-approval from the Centre could create bureaucratic bottlenecks.
• Reluctance of Retired Judges: Financially, arbitration and independent legal practice are more lucrative options. Restrictions on post-tenure practice in the same High Court may discourage participation.
• Potential Strain on Infrastructure: Lack of essential support staff (stenographers, clerks, researchers) could hinder judicial functioning. Additional budget allocation is necessary, requiring strong executive commitment.
• Concerns Over Judicial Independence: Retired judges may still maintain social and professional ties with the legal community. If not chosen carefully, there could be perceived conflicts of interest.

Way Forward

• Streamlining the Appointment Process: The Chief Justice of the High Court should directly recommend candidates to the Supreme Court collegium, with minimal bureaucratic hurdles. A fixed timeline (e.g., three months, as suggested in the Lok Prahari judgment) should be enforced for appointments.
• Ensuring Adequate Support: Additional personnel and logistical support should be guaranteed to maintain efficiency. The government must allocate a dedicated budget for these appointments.
• Incentivizing Participation: Attractive remuneration and flexible tenure terms could encourage more retired judges to return. Post-tenure restrictions on legal practice could be reconsidered.

Conclusion

While appointing ad-hoc judges under Article 224A offers a promising short-term solution to a judicial backlog, its effectiveness depends on streamlining the appointment process, ensuring sufficient support infrastructure, and incentivizing retired judges. However, this measure should complement, rather than replace, broader systemic reforms such as increasing sanctioned judicial strength and improving case management efficiency.