Supreme Court Considers Modifying Guidelines for Ad Hoc Judges in High Courts to Address Criminal Appeal Backlogs
Kiran Raj
The Supreme Court, on January 21, 2025, proposed a modification to its 2021 decision stating the appointment of ad hoc judges under Article 224A of the Constitution to cases where permanent vacancies exceed 20% of the sanctioned strength in High Courts.
The special bench, comprising Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justices B.R. Gavai and Suryakant, heard the matter related to the pending appointment of ad hoc judges in High Courts.
.
The 2021 judgment in Lok Prahari had outlined a framework for appointing ad hoc judges under Article 224A. The judgment stated that ad hoc appointments are not substitutes for regular appointments and are conditional on permanent vacancies exceeding 20% of the sanctioned strength. Paragraphs 54 and 55 of the decision specified this threshold to prevent reliance on ad hoc appointments as an alternative to regular recruitment.
However, in the current hearing, the CJI noted the urgency posed by the backlog of criminal appeals. He observed: “Per judge pendency is very high in some High Courts, and we feel that criminal appeals before Division Benches can be taken up with one sitting judge and one ad hoc judge.”
The court also acknowledged official data illustrating the scale of the issue:
- Allahabad High Court: 63,000 pending criminal appeals
- Karnataka High Court: 20,000 pending appeals
- Patna High Court: 21,000 pending appeals
- Punjab & Haryana High Court: 21,000 pending appeals
- Jharkhand High Court: 13,000 pending appeals
- Rajasthan High Court: 8,000 pending appeals
The Attorney General R. Venkataramani, appearing for the Union of India, and Senior Advocate Arvind Datar, who represented the petitioners in Lok Prahari, provided insights into the issue. Datar stated that 54% of the pendency originates from just four High Courts, requiring the need for targeted interventions.
The bench referred to Paragraphs 54 and 55 of the 2021 judgment, which stated: “Recourse to Article 224A is not an alternative to regular appointments. If recommendations have not been made for more than 20% of regular vacancies, the trigger for recourse to Article 224A would not arise.”
Noting the urgency of addressing the backlog, the CJI proposed a conditional modification to the judgment: “We have to partly modify or put in abeyance certain parts of the Lok Prahari decision, specifically the embargo that requires at least 80% of the sanctioned strength to be filled before appointing ad hoc judges.”
The court observed that any modification would be limited to disposing of criminal appeals. The CJI stated: “Ad hoc judges will sit with Division Benches to hear criminal appeals, with the condition that a sitting judge presides as the senior judge.”
The bench stated that the proposed modification would maintain the principle that ad hoc appointments are supplementary and not a replacement for filling regular vacancies..
The court issued the following directions:
- Assistance from Counsel: The Attorney General and other counsel were directed to address the feasibility of appointing ad hoc judges to Division Benches specifically for criminal appeals.
- Focus on Pendency: The court sought recommendations on how to utilize ad hoc judges to effectively reduce the backlog.
- Next Hearing: The matter was adjourned for further deliberation and will be heard on Tuesday, January 28, 2025, at 3:30 PM.
The bench noted: “We would like learned counsel and the Attorney General to address whether ad hoc judges can be appointed to sit in Division Benches for criminal appeals listed in High Courts.”
Case Title: Lok Prahari Through Its General Secretary V.N. Shukla IAS (Retd) v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number: W.P.(C) No. 1236/2019
Bench: Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Justice B.R. Gavai, and Justice Suryakant
