Font size:
Print
Appointing Ad-Hoc Judges to Reduce Judicial Backlog
Introduction:
The Indian judiciary faces an overwhelming backlog of cases, with over 62 lakh pending cases in High Courts as of January 2025. The Supreme Court’s recent decision to permit the appointment of ad-hoc judges in High Courts under Article 224A aims to address this issue.
Constitutional Provisions for Ad-Hoc Judges
- Article 127: Allows for ad-hoc judges in the Supreme Court to maintain quorum.
- Article 224A: Empowers High Courts to appoint retired judges temporarily to reduce pendency.
Process of Appointment in High Courts (Article 224A)
- The Chief Justice of the High Court identifies retired judges and seeks their consent.
- The recommendation is sent to the Chief Minister, who forwards it to the Union Law Minister.
- The Law Minister consults the Chief Justice of India (CJI) before sending the name to the Prime Minister.
- The President of India gives final approval.
- Ad-hoc judges hold similar powers and privileges as regular High Court judges but are not deemed to be permanent judges.
Supreme Court’s Guidelines on Ad-Hoc Judges (Lok Prahari Case, 2021)
- Ad-hoc appointments should be used only after initiating regular judicial appointments.
- High Courts must define a “Trigger Point” for such appointments, including:
- More than 20% vacancy in sanctioned judicial strength.
- More than 10% of pending cases are older than five years.
- The tenure should be two to three years with periodic review.
- The Supreme Court collegium must approve ad-hoc appointments.
- These appointments must not interfere with regular judicial appointments.
Need for Ad-Hoc Judges
- Judicial Backlog: Over 40% of sanctioned judicial posts are vacant, leading to delayed justice.
- Expertise of Retired Judges: Leveraging the experience and efficiency of retired judges can help expedite case resolution.
- Reduction of Undertrial Population: Expediting criminal appeals can ease overcrowding in jails.
- Temporary Solution to Systemic Delays: Until judicial vacancies are permanently filled, ad-hoc judges provide a stopgap measure.
Challenges in Implementing Ad-Hoc Appointments
- Cumbersome Appointment Process
- Requires presidential approval, making executive cooperation crucial.
- Delays due to bureaucratic hurdles.
- Need for a simplified procedure where the High Court Chief Justice directly recommends candidates to the Supreme Court collegium.
- Infrastructure and Resource Constraints
- Courts lack essential amenities like stenographers and secretarial support.
- The government must allocate adequate budgetary resources.
- High Courts must repurpose existing spaces for additional courtrooms.
- Judicial Independence and Career Concerns
- Ad-hoc judges serve limited terms and do not compete with sitting judges.
- They cannot be elevated, avoiding concerns about career progression conflicts.
- Ensuring integrity and independence in appointments is critical.
- Challenges in Persuading Judges to Return
- Many retired judges prefer arbitration and private practice due to higher financial incentives.
- Ad-hoc judges face restrictions on resuming practice in the same High Court, making relocation difficult.
Way Forward
- Executive and Judicial Coordination
-
- The executive must prioritise judicial appointments to prevent excessive reliance on ad-hoc judges.
- Pre-approval mechanisms with the Centre can streamline ad-hoc appointments.
- Additional law researchers and administrative staff should be assigned to ad-hoc judges to enhance efficiency.
