Nearly five months after the Supreme Court cleared the path for the appointment of ad-hoc judges to address the growing backlog of criminal cases, high courts across the country appear unwilling to act on the recommendation. According to government data, none of the 25 high courts have proposed the appointment of retired judges as ad-hoc judges under Article 224A of the Constitution.
Sources familiar with the judicial appointment process confirmed that, as of June 11, no high court collegium has submitted any recommendations to the Union Law Ministry to appoint retired judges on an ad-hoc basis. This is despite the Supreme Court’s decision on January 30, which allowed high courts to appoint such judges—up to 10 percent of their total sanctioned strength—to help clear a backlog of more than 18 lakh pending criminal cases.
Article 224A permits the Chief Justice of a high court, with the prior consent of the President, to request a retired judge of that high court—or any other—to sit and act as a judge for a temporary period. The goal is to provide additional judicial capacity to tackle long-pending appeals and cases.
Under the standard appointment process, the high court collegium sends its recommendations to the Department of Justice in the Union Law Ministry. The department then reviews the details and forwards them to the Supreme Court Collegium. After deliberation, the SC Collegium sends the final recommendation to the central government. The President of India then signs the warrant of appointment to officially induct the new judge.
Also Read: SC declines urgent hearing on TN plea over education funds freeze
In the case of ad-hoc judges, the same process is followed, with one exception: the President's formal signature on a warrant of appointment is not required. However, presidential assent remains essential for such appointments. Despite the pressing need and the Supreme Court’s green light, retired judges have not yet been appointed under Article 224A, barring one rare instance in the past, officials noted.
The current framework for ad-hoc appointments was shaped by a Supreme Court judgment dated April 20, 2021, which laid down specific conditions for such appointments. Initially, the court held that no ad-hoc judges could be appointed if a high court was functioning with at least 80% of its sanctioned strength, and that ad-hoc judges could preside over benches independently.
However, a special bench comprising then Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna, along with Justices B.R. Gavai (now Chief Justice of India) and Surya Kant, later modified those conditions. The court temporarily suspended the 80% staffing requirement and allowed for some flexibility in appointing ad-hoc judges. It also stipulated that the number of ad-hoc judges should be limited to between two and five per high court, not exceeding 10% of the total sanctioned strength.
According to the revised order, ad-hoc judges must sit on benches led by sitting judges of the respective high courts and help clear pending criminal appeals. Despite this relaxation and the exceptional powers available under Article 224A, high courts have yet to act. Legal experts believe that logistical issues, administrative hesitations, and concerns about protocol may be contributing to the delay, even as the backlog of criminal cases continues to mount.
Also Read: SC refuses to reduce lawyer's sentence for abusing woman judge
Follow us
