Supreme Court approves ad-hoc judges for backlog

Source: The post Supreme Court approves ad-hoc judges for backlog has been created, based on the article “Is appointing ad-hoc judges a viable means to reduce backlog?” published in “The Hindu” on 14th February 2025

UPSC Syllabus Topic: GS Paper2- Judiciary

Context: The article discusses the Supreme Court’s approval of appointing retired judges as ad-hoc judges to reduce pending criminal cases. Experts debate the effectiveness, challenges, and reforms needed for the process. They highlight government cooperation, judicial independence, infrastructure needs, and incentives for retired judges to return.

For detailed information on Ad Hoc Judges of HC read this article here

Why did the Supreme Court approve ad-hoc judges?

1. Case Backlog: As of January 25, 2025, there were 62 lakh pending cases in High Courts, indicating a severe backlog that needs immediate attention.
2. Judicial Vacancies: As of February 1, 2025, High Courts had 367 vacancies out of a sanctioned strength of 1,122 judges.
3. Previous Endorsements: The Supreme Court had previously supported the idea in its 2021 Lok Prahari v. Union of India ruling, recognizing the need for additional judicial resources.
4. Limited Success of Past Efforts: Only three instances of such appointments had been recorded before, showing that while the concept was not new, it hadn’t been effectively utilized.
5. Operational Independence: Ad-hoc judges are meant to alleviate case burdens without interfering with the regular judicial appointment process, making them a practical solution to expedite pending cases, particularly criminal appeals. This helps reduce the financial strain of maintaining overcrowded jails.

What are the challenges in appointing ad-hoc judges?

1. Limited Historical Use: Only three instances of ad-hoc judge appointments have been recorded so far, showing the lack of implementation despite constitutional provisions.
2. Presidential Approval Required: These appointments need government approval, making executive cooperation crucial, though political sensitivity is usually not a concern.
3. Cumbersome Procedures: The process involves High Court Chief Justices recommending candidates, Supreme Court collegium approval, and government clearance, which causes delays.
4. Lack of Incentives: Retired judges may prefer arbitration or private practice due to better financial returns and career flexibility.
5. Judicial Independence Concerns: Serving judges returning to legal practice face restrictions, limiting their future career opportunities.

Will ad-hoc appointments affect regular judicial appointments?

• Experts believe they will not interfere with the appointment of sitting judges.
• Ad-hoc judges serve for only two to three years and do not compete with existing judges.
• High Courts are already functioning below their sanctioned strength, with 367 vacancies as of February 1, 2025.
• These appointments will help in clearing criminal appeals, reducing overcrowded jails.

Are there infrastructure and resource challenges?

• Courts need more personnel, such as stenographers and secretaries, to support ad-hoc judges.
• The government must allocate funds to provide essential facilities.
• High Courts already have space that can be converted into courtrooms.
• Logistical challenges can be addressed with proper planning.

Will retired judges be interested in ad-hoc appointments?

• Many retired judges prefer arbitration or independent practice due to higher earnings.
• Tribunal positions are also hard to fill for similar reasons.
• After serving as ad-hoc judges, senior lawyers face restrictions in practicing in the same High Court.
• To attract judges, better perks and privileges may be required.

Question for practice:

Evaluate the effectiveness of appointing ad-hoc judges in reducing the backlog of criminal cases in High Courts.