Answer

Amid concerns over judicial backlog, the Supreme Court has reformed the appointment process under Article 224A by introducing ad-hoc judges in High Courts, relaxing the 20% vacancy norm for their appointment. This revised mechanism aims to enhance judicial efficiency and uphold judicial integrity.

Positives of the Recent Supreme Court’s Decision to Appoint Ad-hoc Judges in High Courts

• Tackling the Judicial Backlog: Appointing ad-hoc judges directly addresses the immense backlog of over 62 lakh cases in High Courts by increasing the judiciary’s capacity.
  For example: The Supreme Court in the Lok Prahari v. Union of India (2021) endorsed ad-hoc judges as a temporary solution for clearing pending criminal appeals.
• Focused on Criminal Appeals: Ad-hoc judges being restricted to criminal appeals ensures expedited justice for undertrials, reducing the overcrowding in jails(currently at 131% occupancy) and financial strain on the government.
  For example: The pending criminal appeals in the Allahabad High Court, which amount to over 3 lakh cases, could be prioritized under this initiative.
• Minimal Impact on Seniority and Promotion: Since ad-hoc judges are retired or external appointees, they do not affect the career progression of sitting High Court or district judges.
  For example: As per Article 224A of the Constitution, ad-hoc judges do not compete for elevation or promotions, preserving the hierarchy of the judiciary.
• Utilization of Experienced Judges: Leveraging the experience of retired judges ensures high-quality adjudication while utilizing their expertise to expedite case disposal.
  For example: Retired judges like Justice Madan B. Lokur, known for their judicial acumen, could handle complex appeals, adding value to the judiciary.
• Flexibility in Appointments: The Constitution allows for ad-hoc appointments with limited tenure and focused jurisdiction, ensuring quick scalability without altering the regular judicial structure.
  For example: The Lok Prahari verdict suggests completing the appointment process within three months, promoting a streamlined system.

How It Can Effectively Address Judicial Backlog While Maintaining Judicial Independence and Quality

• Enhancing Judicial Bandwidth: By delegating criminal appeals to ad-hoc judges, sitting judges can dedicate more time to intricate constitutional and civil matters, leading to a more balanced and effective judicial system.
• Safeguarding Judicial Independence: Ad-hoc judges are experienced professionals with proven integrity, ensuring decisions remain unbiased despite their temporary tenure.
  For example: Retired judges already vetted for judicial service under stringent standards mitigate concerns about undue influence or partiality.
• Ensuring High-Quality Judgments: Their prior experience guarantees judgments of high quality, especially in criminal appeals where fairness and precision are crucial.
  For example: Justice V.S. Sirpurkar’s role in the Disha case inquiry showcased how retired judges bring expertise and diligence to critical assignments.
• Budgetary Feasibility: Appointing ad-hoc judges is cost-effective compared to permanent additions to the judiciary, ensuring optimal use of limited judicial resources.
• Proactive Leadership by Chief Justices: With Chief Justices driving the process of ad-hoc appointments, the system benefits from leadership focus on integrity and technical competence.
  For example: The three-month timeline mandated by the Supreme Court ensures transparency and accountability in selecting the right candidates.

Challenges of the Supreme Court’s Decision to Appoint Ad-Hoc Judges to Address Judicial Backlog

• Dependency on Government Approval: Ad-hoc judge appointments require presidential approval, relying heavily on executive cooperation, which can delay or obstruct the process.
  For example: The delay in regular judicial appointments due to government inaction, such as the standoff over Collegium recommendations in 2023, demonstrates this issue.
• Limited Scope of Authority: Ad-hoc judges can only hear criminal appeals, which limits their impact on addressing the overall backlog across various categories of cases.
• Lack of Incentives for Judges: Retired judges may prefer arbitration or independent practice due to better financial prospects.
  For example: Many senior advocates in 2024 rejected tribunal appointments due to concerns over restricted practice and lower financial benefits.
• Strain on Judicial Infrastructure: High Courts often lack the necessary resources like personnel, courtrooms, and support staff, impeding the effective functioning of ad-hoc judges.
  For example: As of February 2025, there were 367 judge vacancies across High Courts, stretching the already inadequate infrastructure.
• Risk of Judicial Independence: Ad-hoc judges’ short tenure and potential return to the bar raise concerns about bias or lack of complete detachment from external influences.
  For example: Critics of ad-hoc appointments argue that judges may face undue influence due to prior affiliations or aspirations in the legal profession.

Comprehensive Reforms for the Judiciary

• Streamline Judicial Appointment Processes: Simplify procedures by allowing High Court Chief Justices to directly recommend candidates to the Collegium, minimizing dependency on government approval.
  For example: The Lok Prahari verdict (2021) suggested a three-month timeline for appointments, which could serve as a model for expedited processes.
• Expand Jurisdiction of Ad-Hoc Judges: Allow ad-hoc judges to preside over civil, commercial, and writ cases to address the backlog comprehensively across all types of litigation.
• Enhance Judicial Infrastructure: Increase budgetary allocations for courtrooms, staff, and technology, and assign dedicated law researchers to assist ad-hoc judges.
  For example: Delhi High Court utilized digital infrastructure effectively in 2023, which reduced delays significantly during the pandemic.
• Introduce Case Management Systems: Implement AI-based tools for case scheduling and prioritization, reducing unnecessary adjournments and improving the efficiency of case disposal.
  For example: The Supreme Court of Singapore uses AI tools to manage case timelines, which reduced delays by 30% within two years of implementation.
• Address Regular Judicial Vacancies: Expedite the appointment of permanent judges to reduce reliance on ad-hoc measures and ensure consistent quality in the judicial process.

Justice delayed is justice denied, but with ad-hoc appointments, justice must not be compromised. To truly tackle the judicial backlog, India needs a multi-pronged approach, strengthening the permanent judiciary, increasing funding, leveraging technology like AI-driven case management, and promoting alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, ensuring efficiency without sacrificing independence or quality.

DOWNLOAD PDF