Supreme Court orders flexibility in ad hoc judge appointments: Each High Court shall appoint ad hoc judges by taking recourse to Article 224A

In a noteworthy move aimed at addressing the growing backlog of cases in High Courts, the Supreme Court has relaxed its previous 20% vacancy threshold for the appointment of ad hoc judges. This decision comes after a four-year wait and a reassessment of the pressing need to clear pending criminal appeals.

A special bench led by Chief Justice of India, Sanjiv Khanna, along with Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Surya Kant, issued the ruling on Thursday, January 30, 2025, effectively amending the conditions outlined in the Court's 2021 judgment. That order had originally stipulated that vacancies in a High Court must exceed 20% of the sanctioned strength before ad hoc judges could be appointed under Article 224A of the Constitution.

The Court's latest ruling means that High Courts can now appoint ad hoc judges even when judicial vacancies are below the previously mandated 20% threshold. "Each High Court may appoint ad hoc judges by taking recourse to Article 224A for appointment of ad hoc judges between two to five in number but not exceeding 10 per cent of the sanctioned strength," the Court stated.

The relaxation of this condition is expected to expedite the handling of the over 60 lakh cases currently pending across various High Courts in India, with nearly 20 lakh of those cases related to criminal appeals. Importantly, the new ad hoc judges will sit alongside regular judges in a Division Bench to address these backlog issues. The Court clarified, "the ad hoc judges will sit in a bench presided over by a sitting judge of the High Court and decide pending criminal appeals."

The ruling is part of an ongoing effort to reduce the mounting backlog of cases and was influenced by the National Judicial Data Grid, which highlights the increasing pendency across High Courts. This backlog, in particular, has seen a surge in criminal matters, creating a pressing need for immediate judicial interventions.

The decision to appoint retired judges temporarily to assist in clearing the backlog aligns with the Court’s goal of ensuring the judicial system remains effective without undermining the integrity of regular judicial appointments. However, the Supreme Court reiterated its earlier stance that ad hoc judges should not become a substitute for permanent judicial appointments, cautioning that such measures should remain temporary and specific to instances of extraordinary delay.

As a part of this revised framework, the Court further mandated that the Memorandum of Procedure currently in place will be followed for such appointments. The bench also offered flexibility, stating, "If required, this bench shall re-assemble for further directions. Liberty granted to parties to move an application if required."

Attorney General R. Venkataramani welcomed the ruling, expressing that the government fully supported the move, denoting the urgency of addressing the judicial backlog.