Supreme Court Alters Guidelines for Ad Hoc Judges in High Courts
Click to start listening
Synopsis
On January 30, the Supreme Court amended its previous guidelines concerning the appointment of ad hoc judges in High Courts under Article 224A. The Special Bench highlighted the urgency of filling judicial vacancies to manage an escalating backlog of pending cases.
Key Takeaways
- Supreme Court revises guidelines for ad hoc judges.
- Focus on addressing backlog of pending cases.
- Ad hoc judges limited to 10% of sanctioned strength.
- Existing MoP remains applicable.
- Chief Justices can initiate appointments post recommendations for permanent judges.
New Delhi, Jan 30 (NationPress) The Supreme Court on Thursday revised a previous apex court directive that governed the timeline and stipulations for the appointment of ad hoc judges in High Courts under Article 224A of the Constitution.
A Special Bench led by CJI Sanjiv Khanna and including Justices B.R. Gavai and Surya Kant emphasized the necessity of filling vacancies to address the growing backlog of unresolved cases.
Article 224A authorizes the President to make temporary judicial appointments when the number of judges in a specific High Court is inadequate.
The bench suspended previous requirements stating that the appointment of ad hoc judges should only occur if 80 percent of the sanctioned judges are already in position or have been recommended. It mandated that the number of ad hoc judges, who will primarily serve as puisne judges on criminal benches, must not surpass 10 percent of the sanctioned total.
Additionally, it confirmed that the existing Memorandum of Procedure (MoP) will be applicable to these appointments and allowed parties to submit applications if more guidance is necessary.
Previously, the Supreme Court indicated that the significant backlog necessitated the appointment of ad hoc judges—up to five in each of the 25 High Courts—to alleviate the extensive case load. It stated that Chief Justices of the High Courts could only commence the ad hoc judge appointment process after proposing permanent judges for over 20 percent of the regular vacancies.
This series of directives was issued in response to a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) by the NGO Lok Prahari, advocating for the appointment of ad hoc judges in High Courts under Article 224A to help reduce case pendency.
