The Supreme Court has relaxed its earlier condition for appointing ad hoc judges in High Courts to address the backlog of pending criminal cases. The Court ruled that ad hoc appointments can now be made even if vacancies do not exceed 20% of the sanctioned strength, a condition previously imposed in its April 2021 judgment in the Lok Prahari v. Union of India case.
Key Highlights of the Ruling
1.Relaxation of the 20% Vacancy Rule:
1.The Supreme Court has modified its earlier condition, allowing High Courts to appoint ad hoc judges even if vacancies are below 20% of the sanctioned strength.
2.Focus on Criminal Cases:
Ad hoc judges will primarily handle criminal appeals, working in benches headed by sitting High Court judges.
- Guidelines for Appointment:
- Each High Court can appoint 2 to 5 ad hoc judges, not exceeding 10% of its sanctioned strength.
- The Chief Justice of a High Court can recommend retired judges for appointment.
- No Fixed Timeline:
- While the Court declined to set a fixed timeline for appointments, it emphasized that the process should begin immediately.
Background: Article 224A of the Constitution
- Article 224Aallows the Chief Justice of a High Court, with the President’s consent, to request a retired judge from any High Court to serve as an ad hoc judge.
- Such judges have the same jurisdiction, powers, and privilegesas regular judges but are not considered permanent.
- Their allowancesare determined by the President.
Lok Prahari v. Union of India (2021)
- In this landmark case, the Supreme Court invoked Article 224Ato allow the appointment of ad hoc judges to tackle the backlog of cases in High Courts.
- The Court set specific conditions for such appointments, including:
- Vacancies exceeding 20% of the sanctioned strength
- Cases pending for over five years
- More than 10% of pending casesbeing older than five years
- A lower disposal ratecompared to the rate of new case filings.
Addressing the Pendency Crisis
- High Courts across India are grappling with a massive backlog of cases, with over 60 lakh cases pending, including nearly 20 lakh criminal appeals.
- The earlier 80% working strength conditionhad hindered ad hoc appointments in several High Courts, such as the Allahabad High Court, which has only 80 judgesagainst a sanctioned strength of 160.
Significance of the Ruling
- The relaxation of conditions is expected to expedite the disposal of pending criminal cases, particularly in High Courts with acute backlogs.
- It underscores the judiciary’s commitment to addressing delays in the justice system while maintaining the quality of judicial proceedings.