The Supreme Court proposed appointing ad hoc judges under Article 224A to tackle the backlog of criminal appeals in high courts. Highlighting the severe delays, the court emphasized the need for these judges to work alongside permanent judges. The Chief Justice urged revising the 2021 guidelines to enable prompt appointments, ensuring efficient case resolution and addressing the plight of convicts.
NEW DELHI: Amid the growing backlog of cases in high courts, the Supreme Court on Tuesday proposed the appointment of ad hoc judges under Article 224A of the Constitution to address the acute pendency of criminal appeals. The court suggested these ad hoc judges would sit on division benches headed by permanent high court judges and exclusively adjudicate criminal appeals.
A bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justices B.R. Gavai and Surya Kant highlighted the alarming number of pending criminal cases and the severe strain on high courts. It also noted the need to modify its 2021 verdict, which provided guidelines for appointing ad hoc judges, to ensure their implementation.
“Per-judge pendency is also very high in some high courts. We have a feeling that criminal appeals before the division bench can be taken up by one sitting judge as the senior judge, and one ad hoc judge,”
Read Also: “Let Response Be Filed”: Delhi High Court Seeks CBI’s Stand on INX Media Petitions
the bench remarked.
The court raised concerns about the plight of convicts awaiting hearings on their appeals, often languishing in jails for years. For instance, in the Allahabad High Court, an analysis of data from 2000 to 2021 revealed that a fresh criminal appeal would take an average of 35 years to be decided. During this 21-year period, 1.7 lakh appeals were filed, but only 31,000 cases were disposed of.
As of now, the pending criminal appeal cases in various high courts include:
- 63,000 cases in Allahabad High Court
- 20,000 cases each in Patna and Karnataka High Courts
- 21,000 cases in Punjab and Haryana High Court
The court clarified that ad hoc judges would be appointed solely for hearing criminal appeals and not for any other cases. It emphasized the necessity of invoking Article 224A, which allows for the appointment of retired high court judges as ad hoc judges.
Read Also: “Enough is Enough: Don’t Mess with the Court” – SC Addresses Gender Representation Debate
The bench also referred to its 2021 judgment, which outlined specific conditions for appointing ad hoc judges, such as when vacancies exceed 20% of the sanctioned strength. However, it reiterated that this recourse should not be considered an alternative to regular judicial appointments.
“Recourse to Article 224A is the necessity of the day. While ensuring the powers conferred on the chief justices of high courts are exercised appropriately, it is essential to lay down some guidelines to make this provision a ‘live letter,'”
the court observed.
The Attorney General R. Venkataramani was asked to provide his views on modifying the 2021 guidelines to expedite the appointment process.
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
