The Allahabad High Court Bar Association has written a strongly worded letter to the President of India, copying the Chief Justice of India and Union Law Minister, opposing the Supreme Court Collegium’s recommendation to appoint five retired judges as ad-hoc judges for two years at Allahabad High Court.
PRAYAGRAJ: The Allahabad High Court Bar Association has sent a strongly worded a letter to the President of India, with copies sent to the Chief Justice of India (CJI) and the Union Law Minister, expressing strong opposition to the Supreme Court Collegium’s recommendation to appoint five retired judges as ad-hoc members of the Allahabad High Court.
The letter indicates that the collegium’s proposal to appoint these retired judges is “inexplicable and has been a cause for consternation to the legal fraternity in the state of UP.”
Earlier this month, the appointment panel, led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, approved the names of Justices Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan, Mohd. Aslam, Syed Aftab Husain Rizvi, Renu Agarwal, and Jyotsna Sharma as ad-hoc judges for a two-year term.
ALSO READ: High Courts Reluctant on Ad-Hoc Judge Appointments Despite 18 Lakh Pending Criminal Cases
The collegium’s resolution referenced Article 224A of the Constitution, which authorizes a High Court Chief Justice, with the President’s prior consent, to request any High Court judge to “sit and act as a judge of the high court.” This can only occur with the retired judge’s consent.
In a letter dated February 5, the Association claimed that the names put forward by the collegium “fail to inspire confidence in the ability of the recommended persons to clear the pendency of cases.”
The letter notes that a search on the internet reveals a very limited number of cases decided by at least four of the five judges during their nearly two-year tenure as high court judges.
According to some data Justice Mohd. Aslam issued 46 judgments between March 2021 and January 2023, while Justice Renu Agarwal produced just 73 judgments from August 2022 to June 2024. Justice Jyotsna Sharma issued only 93 judgments from August 2022 to January 2025, and Justice Syed Aftab Hussain Rizvi delivered 151 judgments between March 2021 and April 2025.
In contrast, Justice Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan, who had a longer tenure from November 2018 to January 2025, issued 395 judgments during his time.
The letter argues that several judges who retired between 2024 and 2025 would be younger and more suited to effectively handle case disposal. It contends that the invocation of Article 224A was conducted without engaging stakeholders, particularly the Bar.
The letter questions the appropriateness of invoking Article 224A by the Supreme Court collegium, suggesting that the request for appointments under this article seems to fall under the Chief Justice of the High Court’s jurisdiction, with the prior consent of the President.
Furthermore, the letter states that the five judges appeared to have been “picked out of the blue from amongst a pool of retired judges” without any proper selection process to choose the most qualified among retired judges.
The letter asserts that vacancies in various high courts should be filled by eligible lawyers or judicial officers through a thorough procedure. It critiques the decision to appoint five judges from the pool of retired judges, alleging that this “merely deprives eligible members of the legal fraternity from being appointed to a sensitive constitutional post while the post is filled by retired High Court judges whose innings in the system are already complete.”
The HCBA’s letter further advocates a transition from ad-hoc appointments to substantial reforms.
It States,
“instead of appointing retired judges by invoking Article 224-A… it would have been wholesome to make regular appointments to fill the vacancies.”
This perspective aligns with recommendations from entities like the Law Commission, which urged expedited permanent recruitments to address vacancies in its 261st Report (2015).
The letter elaborates,
“…appointing five judges from a pool of retired judges to fill up any vacancies in the High Court at Allahabad merely deprives eligible persons of the legal fraternity from being appointed to a sensitive constitutional post while the post is filled up by retired High Court judges whose innings in the system is already complete.”
The association emphasizes that if there is indeed a need to invoke Article 224A, the most logical choice of retired judges would be those known for their record of swift and effective case resolution.
In closing, the letter expresses the association’s disapproval of the five judges nominated for appointment, asserting that their names “fail to inspire confidence in the ability of the recommended persons to clear pendency of cases.”
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
