Breaking: Apex Court Permits Appointment Of Ad-Hoc Judges To High Courts Based On Pendency Of Cases
The Supreme Court addressed the issue, modifying previous directions regarding the timeline and conditions for appointing ad-hoc judges under Article 224A of the Constitution.
In a crucial hearing on the pending appointment of ad-hoc judges in various High Courts, the Supreme Court observed that the process must be expedited to tackle the rising backlog of cases.
A special Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna, Justice B.R. Gavai, and Justice Surya Kant addressed the issue, modifying previous directions regarding the timeline and conditions for appointing ad-hoc judges under Article 224A of the Constitution.
CJI Khanna emphasized that wherever case pendency exceeds 10% of the sanctioned strength in a High Court, the proposal for appointing ad-hoc judges can be adopted. However, he clarified that the government would have the discretion to determine the required number of such judges, ensuring that their appointments do not exceed 10% of the total sanctioned strength of the respective High Court.
"We are inclined to keep in abeyance the observations in paragraphs 43, 54, and 55 of the order dated April 28, 2021, which required that ad-hoc judge appointments should not be made unless 80% of the sanctioned strength is already working or recommended," CJI Khanna stated. He added that the requirement that vacancies should not exceed 20% would also be kept in abeyance.
The Court further directed that each High Court may appoint 2-5 ad-hoc judges, ensuring that the number does not exceed 10% of the sanctioned strength. These ad-hoc judges will be part of benches presided over by sitting High Court judges and will primarily handle pending criminal appeals.
While Attorney General (AG) R. Venkataramani pointed out that High Courts would require time for implementation, the Bench stressed the urgency of the situation, given the increasing pendency levels across High Courts. As per the National Judicial Data Grid (NJD), more than 62,000 cases are pending before High Courts as of January 25, 2025, including over 18 lakh criminal cases and more than 44,000 civil cases.
Regarding the Memorandum of Procedure (MoP) for such appointments, CJI Khanna clarified that the existing MoP would be followed. The Bench also kept paragraph 61 of the April 28, 2021, order in abeyance.
On setting a specific timeline for implementation, CJI Khanna stated, "Everything takes its own time, so the better course is not to specify a timeline but ensure the process is fast-tracked." Justice Surya Kant added that while there may not be a rigid timeline, the maximum duration for implementation should still be reasonable.
Furthermore, the Bench granted liberty to the parties to file applications if further directions are required and stated that if necessary, the matter would be listed again for further deliberation.
Previous Hearing
On January 21, the Court had acknowledged that the current stipulation requiring at least 80% of sanctioned judicial strength in High Courts to consider appointing ad hoc judges is impractical in states with high pendency.
The CJI had proposed modifying this threshold to allow for ad hoc judges specifically to address criminal appeals.
The CJI had noted the pendency data:
1. Allahabad High Court: 63,000 criminal appeals in division benches.
2. Patna High Court: 21,000 appeals.
3. Punjab & Haryana High Court: 21,000 appeals.
4. Karnataka High Court: 20,000 appeals.
5. Jharkhand High Court: 13,000 appeals.
6. Rajasthan High Court: 8,000 appeals.
Additionally, Senior Advocate Arvind Datar had highlighted that four High Courts account for 54% of the total arrears across the country.
Targeted Approach for Ad Hoc Judges
The Court had discussed limiting the appointment of ad hoc judges to High Courts with the highest pendency, focusing on criminal appeals requiring division bench adjudication. CJI Khanna suggested that ad hoc judges be paired with sitting judges, with the latter presiding over benches.
"We will have to therefore, partly modify or put in away certain Lok Prahari part, that untill and unless you have 80% of the sanction strength in the working, ad-hoc judges cannot be appointed. We will have to make this change, that the ad-hoc judges will be sitting with a condition that they will be sitting with benches which are dealing with criminal appeals, with one sitting judge as the presiding judge. So, to that extent, we require that moderation. We will have to have that. That's the reason why we have listed," the CJI had said.
Continuous Mandamus and Living Constitution
The CJI had noted that the 2021 judgment on ad hoc appointments is a "living constitution" that allows for modifications to meet evolving judicial challenges. He affirmed the need to adapt to current pendency realities.
"The judgment itself says it is a continuous mandamus. It also says that it is a living constitution we will have to modify," the CJI had said.
20th April 2021 Judgment
To address the backlog of over 57 lakh cases pending in High Courts and persistent judicial vacancies, the Supreme Court had activated Article 224A of the Constitution, which allows the appointment of ad hoc judges. A three-judge bench of Chief Justice SA Bobde and Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Surya Kant laid down comprehensive guidelines to streamline the process and ensure its efficacy.
The Court had emphasized that the guidelines aim to address judicial delays without creating undue financial burden on state governments, as expenses on ad hoc judges substitute costs saved from unfilled vacancies.
Cause Title: Lok Prahari v. Union of India [WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 1236 OF 2019]
