Over a month after the Supreme Court allowed the appointment of ad-hoc judges to tackle the backlog of cases in high courts, the Union government has yet to receive any proposals from the respective high court collegiums.
The Supreme Court’s decision on January 30 aimed to address the growing pendency of over 18 lakh criminal cases by permitting the appointment of retired judges as ad-hoc judges under Article 224A of the Constitution. However, despite the clearance, no high court has yet sent recommendations for appointments.
What Is Article 224A?
- Article 224A of the Indian Constitution allows for the appointment of retired high court judges as ad-hoc judges to help clear pending cases.
- These judges can serve for a period of two to three years, as per the Supreme Court’s directive.
- The process remains similar to regular judicial appointments, except the President’s formal warrant of appointment is not required—only presidential assent is needed.
Why Haven’t High Courts Sent Proposals Yet?
Standard Procedure for Appointing HC Judges
- High court collegiums recommend names of potential judges.
- The Department of Justice in the Union law ministry reviews the names and adds relevant inputs.
- The Supreme Court Collegium makes the final selection and forwards its recommendations to the government.
- The President signs the warrant of appointment.
For ad-hoc judges, the process remains the same, except presidential assent replaces the formal warrant of appointment.
Delays and Challenges
- Lack of precedent: Except for one case, there has been no history of appointing retired judges as ad-hoc judges.
- Uncertainty among high courts: High courts may still be assessing the impact of ad-hoc appointments before making recommendations.
- SC’s previous conditions: The April 2021 Supreme Court ruling had strict criteria for appointing ad-hoc judges, though some were later relaxed in 2024.
SC’s Relaxations for Ad-Hoc Judge Appointments
The Supreme Court’s initial ruling in April 2021 imposed certain restrictions, which have now been partially lifted:
- Earlier Condition: Ad-hoc judges couldn’t be appointed if a high court had 80% of its sanctioned strength filled.
- Relaxation: This condition has now been put in abeyance, allowing appointments even in less-vacant high courts.
- Earlier Condition: Ad-hoc judges could only sit separately on benches.
- Relaxation: Now, ad-hoc judges must sit on benches presided over by a sitting HC judge to hear pending criminal appeals.
- Cap on appointments: Each high court is permitted to appoint 2 to 5 ad-hoc judges, ensuring they do not exceed 10% of the sanctioned strength.
What Happens Next?
- The Union law ministry is awaiting recommendations from the high courts to begin the appointment process.
- High courts need to nominate retired judges and send their names for approval.
- The Supreme Court Collegium will then review and finalize appointments.
With over 18 lakh pending criminal cases, the delay in appointing ad-hoc judges could further worsen the backlog unless high courts expedite the process.
Despite the Supreme Court’s approval to appoint ad-hoc judges, the Union government has not received any proposals from high courts. The delay in appointments raises concerns over judicial backlog, which has reached critical levels.
While the SC has relaxed certain conditions, it remains to be seen when high courts will take action and recommend retired judges for ad-hoc appointments. The government urges high courts to act quickly to ensure timely justice for pending cases.
