Recently, the Supreme Court suggested temporarily appointing retired judges on an ad hoc (as required) basis to address the growing backlog of pending criminal cases before several High Courts.
- Role of Article 224A of Indian Constitution: The provision enables the appointment of retired High Court judges on an ad hoc basis, provided both the judge and the President consent. These judges exercise all powers and privileges of regular judges, though they are not “deemed” as regular High Court judges.
- Judicial Procedure:
- The process involves multiple stages, including consent from the retired judge, recommendation by the Chief Justice of the respective High Court, and approval by the President through consultation with the state and central governments.
- The 1998 Memorandum of Procedure (MOP) guides this process but has been modified by judicial pronouncements, requiring the involvement of the Supreme Court Collegium.
- Supreme Court’s Ruling in 2021:
- The Lok Prahari Through Its General Secretary S.N. Shukla IAS (Retd.) v. Union of India (2021) case established that ad hoc appointments can only be triggered if there are significant delays in filling vacancies or addressing case backlogs.
- The court emphasized conditions such as more than 20% judicial vacancies or significant backlogs (10% of cases pending over five years) as “trigger points.”
- Addressing Backlogs:
- The mechanism seeks to reduce pendency, a critical issue in the Indian judiciary, where many High Courts face chronic understaffing.
- However, ad hoc appointments are a temporary solution, not a substitute for filling permanent vacancies or improving systemic efficiency.
(Source: Indian Express)
