Context: SC relaxes condition for appointment of ad hoc judges to HCs

Source: The Hindu

The requirement that ad hoc judges be appointed to State High Courts only if their judicial vacancies exceeded 20% of the authorized strength was loosened by the Supreme Court.
In an April 2021 ruling in the Lok Prahari against Union of India case, the Supreme Court set the stipulation four years prior.
The Constitution’s Article 224A permits retired High Court judges to serve as ad hoc judges. Ad hoc judges cannot make up more than 10% of a High Court’s authorized judicial strength.
Nearly 20 lakhs of the more than 60 lakh cases that are pending in the High Courts are criminal appeals.

Model Mains Question:

1. The appointment of ad hoc judges under Article 224A of the Indian Constitution is a pragmatic solution to reduce judicial pendency. However, it raises concerns about judicial independence and institutional integrity. Critically analyze. (250 words, 15 marks)

Model Answer

The appointment of ad hoc judges under Article 224A of the Indian Constitution allows Chief Justices of High Courts to appoint retired judges as temporary judges with the President’s approval. This provision, revived by the Supreme Court in the Lok Prahari v. Union of India (2021) case, aims to tackle judicial pendency.

Need for Ad Hoc Judges

1. Judicial Pendency – Over 60 lakh cases are pending in High Courts, necessitating immediate judicial reinforcements.
2. Understaffing in Courts – Many High Courts function with fewer judges than sanctioned strength, leading to delayed justice.
3. Utilization of Experienced Judges – Retired judges bring experience and institutional knowledge, ensuring quality adjudication.

Concerns Regarding Ad Hoc Judges

1. Judicial Independence – Temporary appointments might make judges susceptible to executive influence.
2. Dilution of Regular Appointments – Overreliance on ad hoc judges could divert attention from filling permanent vacancies.
3. Lack of Accountability – Unlike regular judges, ad hoc judges are not part of the collegium system and lack long-term judicial responsibilities.
4. Limited Structural Reforms – It is only a short-term fix and does not address systemic issues like procedural delays and infrastructure gaps.

Way Forward

1. Strengthening the Collegium Process – Ensuring faster permanent appointments rather than relying on temporary judges.
2. Clear Guidelines on Appointment & Tenure – Defining tenure, duties, and powers to prevent executive interference.
3. Judicial Infrastructure Development – Enhancing digital courts, support staff, and case management to address pendency sustainably.

While the use of ad hoc judges is a necessary stopgap measure to address pendency, it should not replace long-term judicial reforms. A balanced approach ensuring independence, accountability, and efficiency is essential for sustaining the credibility of the judiciary.