Source: The post SC suggests appointing ad hoc judges temporarily has been created, based on the article “Why Supreme Court suggested appointing retired High Court judges on ‘ad hoc’ basis” published in “Indian Express” on 4 January 2025
UPSC Syllabus Topic: GS Paper2- Polity-judiciary
Context: The Supreme Court suggested using retired judges temporarily to reduce the backlog of cases in High Courts. Under Article 224A, the Chief Justice of a High Court, with the President’s approval, can ask retired judges to serve again. This process requires multiple steps, including approvals from various government officials.
For detailed information on SC Guidelines for “Appointment of Ad-hoc Judges” in HCs read this article here
What is the suggestion by the Supreme Court regarding ad hoc judges?
On January 21, the Supreme Court suggested appointing retired judges temporarily to address the growing backlog of criminal cases in High Courts. This recommendation is aimed at managing the increasing number of pending cases.
How are ad hoc judges appointed?
The hoc judges appointed procedure is a combination of constitutional provisions (Article 224A), guidelines under the 1998 MOP, and directives from the Supreme Court in the Lok Prahari case (2021).
- Constitutional Provision (Article 224A)
- Article 224A provides the foundation for appointing ad hoc judges. It states that:
- The Chief Justice of a High Court can request a retired judge to serve temporarily.
- This requires the prior consent of the President and the retired judge’s agreement.
- Such judges will have the same powers, jurisdiction, and privileges as a High Court judge, but they will not be “deemed” as regular High Court judges.
- Guidelines Under the 1998 Memorandum of Procedure (MOP)
The 1998 MOP outlines a detailed procedure for appointing retired judges:
- The Chief Justice of the High Court forwards the retired judge’s name and details of the proposed duration of appointment to the state’s Chief Minister.
- The Chief Minister forwards the recommendation to the Union Law Minister. The Union Law Minister consults the Chief Justice of India (CJI).
3. After consultation, the Union Law Minister forwards the recommendation and CJI’s advice to the Prime Minister. - The Prime Minister advises the President to approve the appointment.
- Supreme Court’s 2021 Decision (Lok Prahari Case)
- The Supreme Court in Lok Prahari Through Its General Secretary S.N. Shukla IAS (Retd.) v. Union of India (2021)added further clarity and conditions for such appointments:
- Routing through the Collegium: The recommendation must now go through the Supreme Court collegium, which includes the CJI and the two senior-most judges of the Supreme Court.
- Trigger Points for Appointment: Ad hoc judges can be appointed only under specific conditions:
- Vacancies exceed 20% of the sanctioned strength, excluding pending proposals.
- Over 10% of pending cases are older than five years.
- Efforts to fill regular vacancies must already be initiated.
- Additional Recommendations:
- Chief Justices of High Courts should prepare panels of retired and soon-to-retire judges eligible for appointment.
- . Judges should generally be appointed for 2-3 years, with 2-5 ad hoc judges per High Court.
- The process should undergo periodic reviews to assess its effectiveness.
Why is this provision rarely used?
- The provision under Article 224A is considered “dormant.”
- In 2021, the Supreme Court found only three recorded instances of ad hoc appointments:
- Justice Suraj Bhan (1972) for election petitions in Madhya Pradesh HC.
- Justice P. Venugopal (1982-83) in Madras HC.
- Justice O P Srivastava (2007) for Ayodhya title suits in Allahabad HC.
- There are no recorded instances of ad-hoc judges being appointed since the 2021 decision.
- This suggests that ad hoc appointments are not commonly used despite the growing backlog of cases in High Courts.
Question for practice:
Examine the reasons for the rare use of Article 224A to appoint ad hoc judges in High Courts despite its potential to address the backlog of cases.
