Supreme Court Relaxes Conditions for Ad Hoc Judge Appointments in High Courts

Table of Contents☰

What’s in Today’s article?

The Supreme Court has eased its previous condition for appointing ad hoc judges in High Courts to clear pending criminal cases.
It ruled that ad hoc appointments can be made even if vacancies do not exceed 20% of the sanctioned strength.
The 20% condition was imposed by the Supreme Court in an April 2021 judgment in the Lok Prahari versus Union of India case.

The Chief Justice of a High Court, with the President’s prior consent, can request a retired judge of that or any other High Court to serve as a judge in that state’s High Court.
Such judges will have the same jurisdiction, powers, and privileges as regular judges but will not be considered permanent judges.
Their allowances will be determined by the President’s order.

In Lok Prahari v. Union of India (2021), the Supreme Court invoked Article 224-A of the Constitution to allow the appointment of ad hoc judges in High Courts to address the backlog of cases.
It set guidelines ensuring such appointments occur only after efforts to fill regular vacancies.
The Chief Justice of a High Court may exercise this discretion if:
- vacancies exceed 20% of the sanctioned strength,
- cases in a category have been pending for over five years,
- over 10% of pending cases are older than five years, or
- the disposal rate is lower than the rate of new case filings.

The Supreme Court has allowed High Courts across India to appoint retired judges on an ad-hoc basis to address the backlog of criminal cases.
These judges will only hear criminal appeals in benches headed by a sitting High Court judge.

A special bench comprising Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justices BR Gavai and Surya Kant ruled that:
- Chief Justices of High Courts can recommend retired judges for appointment.
- Each High Court may appoint 2 to 5 ad-hoc judges, not exceeding 10% of its sanctioned strength.

The Supreme Court modified and kept in abeyance certain conditions set in its April 2021 ruling by then CJI SA Bobde, including:
The earlier requirement that vacancies should not exceed 20% of sanctioned strength before appointing ad-hoc judges.
The restriction that ad-hoc judges could sit separately on benches to deal with cases.

The Supreme Court declined a request to set a fixed timeline for appointing ad-hoc judges but emphasized that the process should begin immediately.

The ruling was prompted by the acute backlog of cases.
- The High Courts have over 60 lakh cases pending, of which nearly 20 lakh are criminal appeals.
The 80% working strength condition from the 2021 ruling had prevented ad-hoc appointments in several High Courts, such as Allahabad HC (80 judges out of 160 sanctioned strength).