Nearly a year after the Supreme Court allowed the appointment of ad-hoc judges to clear pending criminal cases, no high court has acted on the decision. With over 18 lakh criminal cases still pending, the constitutionally backed provision under Article 224A remains unused.
New Delhi: Nearly one year after the Supreme Court permitted the appointment of ad-hoc judges in high courts to reduce the mounting backlog of criminal cases, not a single such judge has been appointed across the country.
The main reason is that none of the high courts have shown interest or sent recommendations for these appointments.
People familiar with the judicial appointment process said that none of the 25 high courts has so far recommended names for appointment as ad-hoc judges. This is despite the serious concern over the pendency of more than 18 lakh criminal cases across high courts.
ALSO READ: From High Courts to Apex Court: Supreme Court Judges’ Parent High Courts Explained
On January 30, 2025, the Supreme Court of India allowed high courts to appoint retired judges as ad-hoc judges to deal specifically with pending criminal matters. The apex court had clarified that such appointments should not exceed 10 per cent of the total sanctioned strength of a particular high court.
However, officials said the Union Law Ministry has not received even a single recommendation from any high court collegium for appointing retired judges on an ad-hoc basis.
Article 224A of the Constitution provides the legal basis for such appointments. It allows retired judges of high courts to be re-appointed temporarily to help reduce the case backlog.
As per the existing procedure, the collegium of a high court first sends its recommendations or names to the Department of Justice under the Law Ministry. The department then adds its inputs and background details of the candidates before forwarding the file to the Supreme Court Collegium.
After this, the Supreme Court Collegium takes a final decision and recommends the selected names to the government. The final step is the signing of the ‘warrant of appointment’ by the President.
In the case of ad-hoc judges, the process remains largely the same, except that the President does not sign a warrant of appointment. Still, the consent of the President is mandatory before such appointments are made.
Officials pointed out that, except for one instance, there is almost no precedent of appointing retired judges as ad-hoc judges in high courts.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Questions Delay in Jharkhand High Court Judgements, Seeks Full Report
The legal framework for appointing ad-hoc judges was laid down by the Supreme Court in a judgment dated April 20, 2021. In that judgment, the top court imposed several conditions for such appointments.
However, these conditions were later relaxed by a special bench of the Supreme Court comprising then Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justices B R Gavai and Surya Kant, with some conditions being kept in abeyance.
The 2021 verdict, authored by former Chief Justice S A Bobde, had directed that retired high court judges could be appointed as ad-hoc judges for a period of two to three years to help clear pending criminal cases.
One of the original conditions stated that ad-hoc judges could not be appointed if a high court was already functioning with at least 80 per cent of its sanctioned strength. Another condition allowed ad-hoc judges to sit separately on benches to deal with cases.
Later, while relaxing these conditions, the Supreme Court clarified that, for the time being, the first condition would be kept in abeyance.
The bench also directed that each high court should appoint between two and five ad-hoc judges, ensuring that the total number does not exceed 10 per cent of the court’s sanctioned strength.
The Supreme Court further clarified the role of such judges, stating,
“The ad-hoc judges will sit in a bench presided over by a sitting judge of the high court and decide pending criminal appeals,”
as per the apex court’s order.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Collegium Orders Major Reshuffle, Transfers 21 High Court Judges
Article 224A, which is rarely used, clearly outlines the power to appoint ad-hoc judges in high courts. The constitutional provision states,
“The Chief Justice of a High Court for any state may at any time, with the previous consent of the President, request any person who has held the office of a Judge of that Court or of any other High Court to sit and act as a Judge of the High Court for that State”.
Despite clear constitutional backing and judicial directions, the absence of recommendations from high courts has meant that the provision remains unused, even as criminal case pendency continues to rise.
Click Here to Read More Reports on CJI Surya Kant
