Source: The Hindu 

Introduction 

The Supreme Court's directive of 30th January 2025 represents a watershed moment in Indian judicial history. By authorizing High Courts to appoint retired judges on an ad-hoc basis, the Court has introduced a novel solution to address the mounting case backlog. This directive specifically targets criminal appeals that are currently being heard by sitting judges, demonstrating a targeted approach to reducing judicial pendency while ensuring the quality of justice remains uncompromised. 

What is the Background of Lok Prahari v. Union of India? 

• The 2021 ruling in Lok Prahari v. Union of India stands as a foundational case that transformed the approach to judicial appointments.  
• The Supreme Court not only established comprehensive guidelines for ad-hoc judicial appointments but also expressed regret that such a mechanism had not been implemented earlier to prevent the current crisis.  
• The severity of the situation is evident from the Court's records, which revealed an alarming 62 lakh pending cases in High Courts as of 25th January 2025.  
• This ruling's significance lies in its creation of a robust constitutional framework that balances the need for expedited appointments with safeguards for maintaining judicial integrity. 

What was Justice Rajeev Shakdher's Perspective? 

• Justice Shakdher's analysis provides valuable insight into the practical implications of ad-hoc appointments. He noted that despite only three historical instances of such appointments, the Supreme Court's endorsement opens new possibilities for judicial reform.  
• His explanation on expediting criminal appeals directly addresses the critical issue of jail overcrowding.  
• Furthermore, he proposed a streamlined appointment process where High Court Chief Justices would recommend candidates directly to the Supreme Court collegium after obtaining their consent, thereby ensuring both efficiency and maintenance of judicial standards. 

What was the Justices Shadan Farsat's Analysis? 

• Farsat's observations center on the constitutional foundations of ad-hoc judicial appointments.  
• He draws attention to the explicit constitutional provisions that permit such appointments in both the Supreme Court and High Courts.  
• However, he identifies a potential bottleneck in the requirement for presidential approval, suggesting that the government should expedite these approvals, particularly for specific case categories. 
• His analysis states that while infrastructure and resource allocation pose challenges, these are fundamentally logistical issues that can be resolved through proper planning. 

What were the Supreme Court's Critical Issues? 

• The Supreme Court's comprehensive review identified five interconnected challenges.  
• The Court recognized the need to of the current appointment process while maintaining quality standards.  
• It is creating transparent selection criteria focused on integrity and expertise.  
• The Court also addressed concerns about potential interference with regular appointments, clarifying the supplementary nature of ad-hoc positions. Additionally, it called for regular effectiveness monitoring and stressed the importance of adequate infrastructure support. 

What is Article 224A of Indian Constitution,1950? 

• Article 224A: Appointment of Retired Judges at High Courts 
  • • Core Provision: 
      • Article 224A establishes a constitutional mechanism that allows retired High Court judges to be temporarily reappointed as judges of High Courts.  
      • This provision appears in Part VI of the Constitution, which deals with state-level governance structures, specifically focusing on the judiciary at the state level. 
  • Key Components of the Article: 
    • Appointment Authority: The National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) holds the power to make these appointments, but only after receiving a specific reference from the Chief Justice of the concerned High Court. 
    • Presidential Consent: The provision requires mandatory prior consent from the President of India before any such appointment can be made. This creates an additional layer of constitutional oversight. 
    • Eligibility Criteria: The person being considered must have previously served as a judge of either: 
      • The High Court where the appointment is being considered 
      • Any other High Court in India 
      • Rights and Privileges: When appointed, these retired judges receive: 
      • All jurisdictional powers of a regular High Court judge 
      • Equal privileges as sitting judges 
      • Specific allowances determined by Presidential order 
  • Voluntary Nature: A crucial aspect of this provision is its voluntary character. The article explicitly states that no retired judge can be compelled to accept such an appointment without their consent. 
  • Legal Status: While these judges exercise full judicial powers, they are not considered regular High Court judges for other purposes. This creates a distinct category of judicial officers with specific functions but limited institutional role. 

What is the Purpose of Article 224A of the Indian Constitution? 

• Article 224A of the Constitution provides a detailed legal architecture for ad-hoc judicial appointments.  
• The provision grants High Court Chief Justices the authority to request former judges' service, subject to presidential consent.  
• These appointments carry equivalent judicial authority to sitting judges, though appointees cannot be elevated to higher positions.  
• The temporary nature of these appointments specifically targets extraordinary case pendency.  
• Current statistics showing 367 vacancies against 1,122 sanctioned positions (as of 1st February 2025) the urgent need for implementing this constitutional provision. 

Conclusion 

The implementation of ad-hoc judicial appointments demonstrates a thoughtful balance between addressing immediate judicial pendency and maintaining high judicial standards. This initiative's success depends on three key factors: streamlined appointment processes, robust infrastructure support, and sustained cooperation between judicial and executive branches. While this measure provides immediate relief, it should be viewed as part of a broader strategy requiring comprehensive judicial reforms for lasting improvement in the Indian legal system's efficiency.