Supreme Court’s Proposal for Ad Hoc Judges in India

The Supreme Court of India has recently proposed the temporary appointment of retired judges to tackle the growing backlog of pending criminal cases in High Courts. This suggestion comes in light of number of vacancies and an increasing number of delayed cases. The court’s recommendation revolves around Article 224A of the Constitution of India, which allows such appointments under specific conditions.

About Article 224A

• Article 224A permits the Chief Justice of a High Court to request retired judges to perform judicial duties.
• This requires the consent of both the retired judge and the President of India.
• Although rarely used, it provides a mechanism to address judicial shortages and expedite case resolutions.

Appointment Process

The appointment process is detailed in the 1998 Memorandum of Procedure (MOP). After a retired judge consents, the Chief Justice forwards the name to the Chief Minister. The Chief Minister then consults the Union Law Minister, who liaises with the Chief Justice of India before recommending the appointment to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister ultimately advises the President for approval.

Conditions for Appointment

The Supreme Court has established criteria for when ad hoc judges can be appointed. This includes situations such as:

• There are less than 20% of judicial vacancies
• The High Court must have over 20% vacancies and more than 10% of its backlog should exceed five years.

These conditions aim to ensure that ad hoc appointments are a last resort after regular vacancies have been addressed.

Historical Context of Ad Hoc Appointments

Historically, ad hoc judges have been appointed infrequently. The Supreme Court identified only three instances since the provision’s inception. These include Justice Suraj Bhan in 1972, Justice P. Venugopal in 1982, and Justice O P Srivastava in 2007. The court has noted that the provision remains largely dormant, with no appointments made since a 2021 decision.

Future Recommendations

The Supreme Court has suggested that each Chief Justice should maintain a panel of retired judges for potential ad hoc appointments. It recommends that these judges serve for a period of 2 to 3 years, with a small number of appointees per High Court. Additionally, the appointment process should undergo periodic reviews to assess its effectiveness.

Addressing Judicial Backlog

The Supreme Court’s initiative aims to address the alarming backlog of cases in Indian courts. Reports indicate that High Courts are facing nearly 40% vacancies. The appointment of experienced retired judges could provide immediate relief in managing the caseload. However, the court has expressed concerns that reliance on ad hoc judges might hinder regular judicial appointments.

Implications for the Judicial System

It marks the need for a balance between immediate solutions and long-term judicial reforms. The effectiveness of ad hoc judges in reducing case backlogs will depend on strict adherence to the established criteria and regular evaluations.

Questions for UPSC:

1. Critically analyse the significance of Article 224A in the context of judicial appointments in India.
2. Estimate the impact of high vacancy rates in High Courts on the Indian judicial system.
3. With suitable examples, point out the historical instances of ad hoc judges appointed under Article 224A.
4. What are the potential challenges of relying on ad hoc judges for managing case backlogs? Discuss.

Answer Hints:

1. Critically analyse the significance of Article 224A in the context of judicial appointments in India.

1. Article 224A allows the temporary appointment of retired judges to address judicial vacancies.
2. It aims to expedite case resolutions in High Courts facing backlogs.
3. The provision requires consent from both the retired judge and the President of India.
4. Historically underused, it marks the challenges in filling judicial vacancies regularly.
5. It provides a stopgap solution while maintaining the integrity of the judicial system.

2. Estimate the impact of high vacancy rates in High Courts on the Indian judicial system.

1. High vacancy rates lead to delays in case resolutions, contributing to a backlog of pending cases.
2. Judicial inefficiency can erode public trust in the legal system and its ability to deliver justice.
3. Vacancies can overwhelm existing judges, increasing their workload and reducing the quality of justice.
4. It may encourage reliance on temporary measures like ad hoc judges, which might not be sustainable long-term.
5. High vacancy rates may prompt calls for judicial reforms and better recruitment processes.

3. With suitable examples, point out the historical instances of ad hoc judges appointed under Article 224A.

1. Justice Suraj Bhan was appointed to the Madhya Pradesh HC in 1972 for one year to hear election petitions.
2. Justice P. Venugopal served in the Madras HC in 1982, with his term renewed in 1983.
3. Justice O P Srivastava was appointed to the Allahabad HC in 2007 for the Ayodhya title suits.
4. These instances illustrate the rarity of ad hoc appointments under Article 224A.
5. The Supreme Court’s acknowledgment of these cases marks the provision’s dormancy in recent years.

4. What are the potential challenges of relying on ad hoc judges for managing case backlogs? Discuss.

1. Ad hoc judges may not have the same commitment or accountability as regular judges, affecting judicial quality.
2. Reliance on temporary judges could deter efforts to fill permanent judicial vacancies, perpetuating the problem.
3. There may be inconsistencies in judicial decisions due to varying judicial philosophies among ad hoc appointees.
4. Concerns regarding the impartiality and independence of ad hoc judges could arise, impacting public perception.
5. Periodic reviews and strict adherence to appointment criteria are essential to mitigate these challenges.