High Courts Need Permanent Judges Not Ad-Hoc

The Supreme Court's recent decision to invoke Article 224A of the Constitution, allowing for the appointment of ad hoc judges in High Courts, is a significant and contentious development in the Indian judicial landscape. The intention behind this move is ostensibly to address the alarming backlog of cases—over 57 lakh pending cases and a vacancy rate of approximately 40 per cent—it raises critical concerns regarding the integrity and long-term efficacy of our judicial system. This decision warrants a thorough critique, particularly in light of constitutional principles and the need for systemic reform. 

The invocation of Article 224A reflects an urgent response to a crisis that has been years in the making. The backlog of cases in Indian courts has reached staggering proportions, with five High Courts alone accounting for over half of these pending cases. The Supreme Court’s decision to appoint retired judges as ad hoc judges is not merely a pragmatic solution but an indictment of the extraordinary delays in filling judicial vacancies. Whether these delays stem from inefficiencies within the Collegium system or from governmental inertia, it is clear that the current state of affairs is untenable. 

Article 224A permits the appointment of retired judges as ad-hoc judges when there is an urgent need to manage case backlogs. Historically, this provision has been underutilised, primarily serving specific needs rather than addressing systemic issues. The Supreme Court aims to provide immediate relief; however, it also raises fundamental questions about reliance on temporary measures instead of addressing structural deficiencies within our judiciary. 

The Supreme Court has set certain guidelines for these appointments, stipulating that they should occur when vacancies exceed 20 per cent of sanctioned strength or when more than 10 per cent of pending cases are over five years old. While these criteria may provide a framework for action, they also highlight the reactive nature of this approach rather than a proactive strategy aimed at long-term solutions. 

Relying on ad hoc judges as a means to alleviate case backlogs can be likened to applying a band-aid to a deep wound. It may provide immediate relief, it does not address the underlying issues causing judicial inefficiencies. Ad hoc judges, often retired, may lack the same level of engagement and accountability as their full-time counterparts. This can lead to inconsistencies in judgment and a dilution of judicial standards. 

Moreover, there are significant concerns regarding potential erosion of judicial integrity. The selection process for ad hoc judges lacks the rigorous scrutiny applied to regular judges, raising questions about meritocracy and transparency. If not managed carefully, this could lead to perceptions of favouritism and bias in judicial appointments, further undermining public trust in an already beleaguered system. 

The appointment of ad hoc judges raises constitutional concerns regarding accountability and oversight. Article 124(2) mandates that judges be appointed based on their qualifications and suitability for office. By relying on ad hoc appointments, there is a risk that these constitutional safeguards may be circumvented. This could pave the way for favouritism and undermine public confidence in an already beleaguered system. 

The increasing reliance on ad hoc appointments could inadvertently compromise judicial independence—a cornerstone of our democratic framework. The perception that judicial positions can be filled at will undermines the sanctity of permanent appointments and could have far-reaching implications for the rule of law. 

Rather than resorting to ad hoc appointments as a stopgap measure, it is crucial that we prioritise filling existing vacancies with qualified candidates. This requires a commitment from both the judiciary and the executive to streamline the appointment process and eliminate bureaucratic hurdles. A well-staffed judiciary is essential for ensuring timely justice and maintaining public confidence. 

The current Memorandum of Procedure should guide these appointments, ensuring that only those with appropriate experience and expertise are considered. It is vital that we establish clear criteria for selecting ad hoc judges to prevent any semblance of favouritism or political influence. 

Moreover, investing in enhancing the capacity and training of newly appointed judges is essential. A robust training framework will equip judges with the skills necessary to navigate complex legal issues and manage their caseloads effectively. This investment will not only improve individual performance but also contribute to a more competent and efficient judiciary overall. 

Fostering an environment that encourages continuous learning among judges is critical. Regular workshops, seminars, and training programs can help judges stay abreast of evolving legal standards and practices, thereby enhancing their ability to deliver justice effectively. Restoring public trust in the judiciary is paramount. Transparency in both appointment processes and judicial proceedings is essential for greater confidence among citizens. Clear communication about how judges are selected and how cases are managed can demystify the judicial system and enhance public understanding.

Engaging with various stakeholders—including legal professionals, civil society organisations, and academic institutions—can provide valuable insights into improving judicial processes. Collaborative efforts can lead to innovative solutions that address both backlog issues and systemic inefficiencies. Establishing independent oversight mechanisms can enhance accountability within the judiciary. Such mechanisms could include regular audits of judicial performance and public reporting on case disposal rates, which would serve to reassure citizens about the effectiveness of their judicial system. 

The Supreme Court's decision to appoint ad hoc judges may offer temporary relief from mounting case backlogs; it ultimately sidesteps the pressing need for comprehensive judicial reform grounded in constitutional principles. By prioritising permanent appointments, investing in judicial capacity, and restoring public trust through transparency, we can create a more effective and resilient judiciary capable of upholding justice for all citizens. 

Ad hoc judges may provide immediate relief from pressing backlogs; they should not replace the necessity for regular appointments that uphold judicial integrity and effectiveness as mandated by our Constitution. The time has come for India’s judiciary to embrace systemic change rather than settle for temporary fixes that fail to address underlying issues. Only through these measures can we ensure that our legal system not only meets current demands but also stands strong for future generations while remaining true to constitutional ideals. 

In essence, invoking Article 224A may serve as an expedient response to an urgent crisis within our courts today, but it must not become a substitute for genuine reform aimed at ensuring that our judiciary operates efficiently under constitutional mandates—an institution where justice is not merely delivered but perceived as being delivered fairly and transparently by those who hold office under its esteemed banner. 

(Views expressed are personal)

(Kumar Kartikeya is a legal researcher)