Reviving Justice: Supreme Court's Bold Move to Appoint Ad-Hoc Judges in High Courts

In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court of India relaxed the conditions for the appointment of ad-hoc judges to high courts, acknowledging the pressing need to tackle the overwhelming backlog of cases.

The three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna, along with Justices B.R. Gavai and Justice Surya Kant, has permitted the appointment of retired judges on an ad-hoc basis under Article 224-A of the Indian Constitution.

The Indian judicial system has been grappling with a massive pendency of cases, particularly in criminal matters. Recognizing the urgent need for intervention, the Supreme Court has empowered High Courts to recommend the appointment of two to five retired judges, ensuring the number does not exceed 10% of the sanctioned judicial strength.        

The foundation for this decision was laid earlier in 2021 in the case of Lok Prahari v. Union of India [(2021) 15 SCC 80], where the Supreme Court activated the dormant Article 224-A. This provision allows the Chief Justice of a High Court to invite retired judges to serve temporarily to address an emergency backlog of cases.

Guidelines for Ad-Hoc Appointments

To maintain judicial integrity and prevent arbitrary appointments, the Court outlined specific conditions under which Article 224-A may be invoked:

When vacancies exceed 20% of the sanctioned strength of judges.

When cases in a particular category have remained unresolved for over five years.

If more than 10% of the total pending cases are older than five years.

When the rate of case disposal is lower than the rate of new cases filed.

These criteria ensure that the provision is activated only when the regular judicial appointment process is already underway and facing delays.

The Significance of This Decision

This decision underscores the Supreme Court’s commitment to judicial efficiency and timely justice delivery. By leveraging the experience of retired judges, the judiciary aims to clear case backlogs without compromising on legal expertise.

Moreover, it signals a pragmatic approach to justice administration, balancing the need for fresh judicial appointments with the immediate necessity of addressing delayed cases.

Legal experts view this move as a significant step towards reducing case pendency and ensuring that justice is neither delayed nor denied.

However, its effectiveness will depend on how efficiently High Courts implement these guidelines and the willingness of retired judges to take on temporary roles.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision to relax conditions for ad-hoc judicial appointments is a bold and necessary reform. As India’s judiciary battles a growing backlog, this initiative could prove to be a game-changer in streamlining judicial processes and enhancing the efficiency of courts across the country. The success of this move will be closely watched, as it could set a precedent for future judicial reforms in India’s legal landscape.