Article 224A of the Indian Constitution provides a mechanism to tackle the backlog of cases in High Courts by allowing the appointment of retired judges in an ad hoc capacity. This provision states that the Chief Justice of a High Court, with prior approval from the President of India, may request a retired judge of the same or another High Court to resume judicial duties. Once appointed, such judges exercise the full jurisdiction, privileges, and powers of sitting High Court judges and receive allowances as determined by the President.
A key feature of this provision is that it requires both the retired judge’s consent and the President’s approval to initiate the appointment. The procedure for this, detailed in the 1998 Memorandum of Procedure (MoP), ensures meticulous checks and balances. Once a retired judge agrees to the appointment, their name and details are forwarded by the Chief Justice to the Chief Minister, who then passes the recommendation to the Union Law Minister. This leads to consultation with the Chief Justice of India (CJI) before the Prime Minister advises the President to approve the appointment.
The system is designed to maintain judicial efficiency while addressing significant vacancies. The Supreme Court has noted that such appointments should occur only when there is an existing mechanism in place for filling regular judicial vacancies, ensuring that Article 224A remains a stopgap measure rather than a permanent solution.
What Are the Criteria and Guidelines for Appointing Ad Hoc Judges?
The appointment of ad hoc judges, as outlined under Article 224A, is meant to address specific circumstances rather than serve as a substitute for regular judicial appointments. To prevent the overuse of this provision, the Supreme Court in 2021 issued detailed guidelines in the case of Lok Prahari Through Its General Secretary S.N. Shukla (Retd) v. Union of India. The Court highlighted the need for “trigger points” to initiate the process:
- The vacancies in a High Court must exceed 20% of its sanctioned strength (excluding pending recommendations for appointments).
- More than 10% of pending cases in the court must have been unresolved for over five years.
- The Chief Justice of the respective High Court must consult a collegium comprising the Chief Justice of India and the two most senior Supreme Court judges to recommend an ad hoc judge.
- Ad hoc appointments should only last 2-3 years, with two to five judges appointed per court where necessary.
The Court also stressed that ad hoc appointments must be limited and used sparingly to ensure that they do not discourage timely regular appointments. While addressing judicial backlogs is crucial, relying heavily on retired judges under Article 224A could undermine efforts to fill vacancies through permanent recruitments.
What Are the Challenges Associated with Judicial Backlog and Ad Hoc Judges?
India’s judiciary has faced persistent challenges in dealing with a growing backlog of cases, exacerbated by a shortage of judges. In High Courts, vacancies remain as high as 40%, leaving critical judicial functions stretched thin. Courts like Allahabad, Bombay, and Punjab & Haryana routinely see case backlogs reaching millions.
To alleviate this situation, the Supreme Court has emphasized the importance of appointing retired judges temporarily under Article 224A. However, the suggestion has met with resistance, particularly regarding concerns that appointing retired judges may disincentivize the government and judicial administration from expediting permanent judicial appointments. Critics worry that such a reliance may create an administrative loophole, weakening efforts toward building a sustainable judicial framework.
Despite such criticisms, ad hoc judges can provide significant relief to High Courts struggling with older cases and time-sensitive petitions. Cases involving public interest litigations, disputes that have spanned decades, and sensitive constitutional matters could particularly benefit from the expertise and efficiency brought by retired judges. The Supreme Court acknowledged this in its 2021 decision but reiterated the need for clearly defined boundaries for these appointments.
What Precedents Exist for Appointing Ad Hoc Judges in India?
Historically, Article 224A has remained a “dormant provision,” with only three recorded instances of ad hoc appointments prior to 2021. This underscores the rare invocation of the article, reflecting its use as an emergency provision rather than a regular mechanism for judicial appointments:
- Justice Suraj Bhan (Madhya Pradesh High Court, 1972): Appointed for a year to deal with election petitions.
- Justice P Venugopal (Madras High Court, 1982): Initially appointed for one year, his term was extended for another year in 1983.
- Justice O P Srivastava (Allahabad High Court, 2007): Appointed to adjudicate the sensitive Ayodhya title dispute.
These appointments have shown how retired judges with decades of judicial experience can resolve crucial and longstanding cases efficiently. Yet, since these precedents, no appointments have occurred under Article 224A, even in High Courts with mounting backlogs, until new recommendations and procedural refinements came into effect following the Lok Prahari judgment.
What Are the Benefits and Concerns of Using Ad Hoc Judges?
Ad hoc judges offer several benefits in addressing judicial backlogs while ensuring justice delivery remains uninterrupted:
- They bring rich judicial experience and a wealth of knowledge accumulated over their tenure, which can expedite the resolution of complex and long-pending cases.
- Their temporary tenure allows flexibility in allocating judicial resources without requiring permanent increases in High Court appointments.
- They can focus on specific, targeted dockets, such as election-related disputes or sensitive public interest litigations.
However, their use also raises valid concerns:
- An over-reliance on ad hoc appointments risks discouraging efforts to fill permanent vacancies, which is essential to strengthen the judiciary structurally.
- Questions about the neutrality and independence of ad hoc judges can arise, as they might feel indebted to those recommending their reappointment.
- Frequent recourse to Article 224A could disrupt the continuity of judicial processes if permanent judges and temporary judges alternate their responsibilities too frequently.
The solution to these challenges lies in maintaining the balance between utilizing the judicial expertise of retired judges and ensuring the judiciary remains robust and adequately staffed through permanent appointments.
How Can Ad Hoc Appointments Impact the Future of the Judiciary?
India’s judiciary is at a crossroads. With over 4.7 crore cases pending in courts as of early 2025, clearing this backlog is a pressing national priority. Appointing ad hoc judges, particularly retired justices familiar with the complexities of Indian law, could provide an essential mechanism for expediting resolution in bottlenecked High Courts.
The Supreme Court’s emphasis on clear criteria and limitations for these appointments, as outlined in the Lok Prahari judgment, ensures that these temporary measures complement rather than undermine permanent judicial reforms. By carefully adhering to these principles, the judiciary can maximize the utility of Article 224A without eroding the sanctity of the judicial process.
Moving forward, strengthening the collegium system, expediting permanent appointments, and retaining judicial independence must remain priorities. While ad hoc judges under Article 224A may provide short-term relief, they cannot serve as a panacea for the systemic issues plaguing India’s judiciary. For a holistic resolution, increased efficiency in the judicial recruitment process, digitization of case records, and the establishment of additional judicial infrastructure will be indispensable.