Context: On the appointment of ad-hoc judges to High Courts

Source: The Hindu

On January 30, the Supreme Court permitted High Courts to appoint retired judges on an as-needed basis to help with the mounting backlog of criminal cases, as long as they serve on a bench headed by a sitting judge and exclusively hear criminal appeals.

In Lok Prahari Through Its General Secretary S.N. Shukla IAS (Retd.) vs. Union of India (2021), they loosened a regulation that restricted these appointments to High Courts where judicial vacancies accounted for more than 20% of the authorized forces.

The 15th CAA, 1963, established Article 224-A, which permits the ad hoc appointment of retired judges to High Courts. Both the retired judge and the Indian President must approve such appointments. These judges receive allowances as established by the President’s order and wield the same jurisdiction, powers and privileges as a sitting High Court judge.

The court determined in Lok Prahari that certain situations can call for the appointment of ad hoc judges in particular High Courts. Almost 40% of the judicial posts in all High Courts were unfilled at the time. The Law Commission’s 1979, 1988, and 2003 recommendations, which promoted the temporary appointment of retired judges as a practical solution to the growing backlog of cases, were also cited by the Court.

The Court explained that, after taking into account the number of sitting judges as well as the pending proposals for judicial appointments, ad hoc judges can only be appointed where recommendations for filling less than 20% of vacancies have not been submitted.

Conditions for designating ad hoc judges:

1.If vacancies in a High Court exceed 20% of its sanctioned strength

2.If cases in a specific category have been pending for more than 5 years

3.If more than 10% of the High Court’s cases are pending for over 5 years

4.If the case disposal rate is lower than the rate at which new cases are filed

According to data from the National Judicial Data Grid, the CJI-led bench recently observed that there are 62 lakh pending cases in all High Courts. More than 44 lakhs of these are civil cases, and more than 18.2 lakh are criminal cases.

Ad hoc judges can only make up 10% of a High Court’s authorized judicial strength, which means that each High Court can only appoint two to five of these judges.

There have only been three documented instances of ad-hoc judicial appointments:

1.In 1972, Justice Suraj Bhan was appointed to the Madhya Pradesh High Court

2.In 1982, Justice P.Venugopal was appointed to Madras High Court

3.In 2007, Justice O.P.Srivastava was appointed to the Allahabad High Court to preside over the Ayodhya title suits.

Model Question:

1. Discuss the constitutional provisions related to the appointment of ad-hoc judges in the Supreme Court and High Courts. Analyze their significance and challenges in addressing the pendency of cases in India. (250 words, 15 marks)

Model Answer

The appointment of ad-hoc judges serves as a temporary measure to address judicial vacancies and backlog in courts. Article 127 (for the Supreme Court) and Article 224A (for High Courts) of the Indian Constitution provide for such appointments.

Constitutional Provisions

1. Supreme Court (Article 127): The Chief Justice of India (CJI), with the President’s approval, can appoint a retired Supreme Court judge as an ad-hoc judge if there is a lack of quorum.
2. High Courts (Article 224A): The Chief Justice of a High Court can appoint a retired judge with the President’s consent to act as an ad-hoc judge when needed.

Significance of Ad-hoc Judges

1. Reducing Case Pendency: Helps clear backlog, ensuring timely justice.
2. Expertise and Experience: Retired judges bring vast judicial knowledge.
3. Efficient Use of Resources: Utilizes retired judges instead of increasing permanent appointments.
4. Temporary Solution for Vacancies: Addresses delays in judicial appointments.

Challenges

1. Not a Long-term Solution: Structural reforms are needed instead of ad-hoc measures.
2. Independence Concerns: Possible executive influence over appointments.
3. Limited Tenure and Authority: May not be as effective as permanent judges.

While ad-hoc judges can help tackle pendency, a comprehensive judicial reform, including increasing permanent appointments and improving infrastructure, is necessary for long-term solutions.