Supreme Court issues guidelines for appointment of Ad-hoc Judges under Article 224A

While deciding the case of Lok Prahari v. Union of India, the Supreme Court passed certain general guidelines to foster transparency in the exercise of the power of appointment of ad-hoc judges under Article 224A of the Constitution of India.

It laid down five trigger points that will activate such process, which includes situations:

a. when the vacancies are more than 20% of the sanctioned strength,

b. cases of a particular category pending for over five years,

c. more than 10% of the pending cases are more than five years old,

d. the number of cases disposed of is less than the number of cases which are instituted,

e. a condition of mounting arrears is expected if the rate of disposal is lower than the rate of filing for a year or longer.

The Court emphasized that such appointments shall not be a substitute for regular appointments and can be resorted to only when filling up the regular vacancies has been initiated, and their appointments are awaited.

Concerning the terms and conditions of appointment of such judges, the Court focused on various elements, stating that as the objective is to clear the backlog, the past performance of the recommended people and their express consent would play an important role. It was decided that the appointments within the range of 2-5 ad-hoc judges should be made within three months for 2-3 years. For the process of such appointment, paragraph 24 of the Memorandum of Procedure, laid down by the Court under Article 141, could be used.

Regarding the role of these ad-hoc judges, the court stated that it would not be permissible for an ad-hoc Judge to perform any other legal work, whether it be advisory, or arbitration, or appearance. To hear old cases, a divisional bench could also be constituted. The objective behind the role would be to assign these appointed ad-hoc judges more than five years old cases.

To maintain the dignity of these judges and also because they are prohibited to all other legal work, the emoluments and the allowances were said to be equivalent to the judges minus the pension. The emoluments to be paid would be a charge on the Consolidated Fund of India consisting of salary and allowance. It was noted that the Second Schedule, Part D of the Constitution of India, stipulates the emoluments and benefit that have to be conferred on the judges of the Supreme Court and of the High Courts.

The Ministry of Law and Justice has been asked to file a report in respect of the progress made.

The bench previously had extensive discussions with various senior advocates representing the High Courts in the same matter. The court rejected the stand of the Union of India concerning ad-hoc Judges only being appointed after the regular vacancies are filled because the very reason why at present Article 224A has been resorted to is non-filling up of vacancies and the mounting arrears.