How Ad Hoc Judges Risk Undermining the Judiciary
What is the ultimate solution to delays in the disposal of cases in courts? The author argues that appointing ad hoc judges compounds rather than solves the problem
Published on: 8 February 2025, 07:13 am
THE Indian judiciary, much like a perpetually leaking roof, has for a long time attempted to patch up its structural deficiencies with quick fixes instead of comprehensive repairs. But instead of addressing the gaping wound of unfilled permanent judicial positions, the system has come up with a patch work solution- appointing ad hoc judges. A stopgap measure that will do little to fix the actual problem and merely delay the collapse.
On January 30, 2025, the Supreme Court of India allowed High Courts to appoint retired judges on an ad-hoc basis to address the issue of growing backlog of cases in courts across the country. This judgment relaxed a previous condition set in the 2021 Lok Prahari case, which had restricted such appointments to High Courts with judicial vacancies exceeding 20%. These judges, appointed under Article 224-A of the Constitution, exercise the same powers as sitting judges and are compensated similarly, excluding pension.
Historically, ad-hoc judicial appointments have been rare, with only three documented instances: in 1972, Justice Suraj Bhan was appointed to the Madhya Pradesh High Court to decide election petitions; in 1982, Justice P. Venugopal was appointed to the Madras High Court; and in 2007, Justice O.P. Srivastava was appointed to the Allahabad High Court to preside over the Ayodhya case.
India's judiciary is already grappling with a severe shortage, with just 21 judges per million people—a dismal ratio for a country of over a billion. Yet, instead of addressing this crisis by filling permanent positions, judicial vacancies continue to pile up. 367 High Court seats remain unfilled, with vacancy rates exceeding 40% in several courts, and an overall shortfall of 29.4%. The situation in Trial Courts is even more dire, with 5,292 judicial posts lying vacant as of February 4, 2025, according to Unstarred Question No. 723, answered on February 7, 2025. The judiciary has decided that instead of filling up the vacant posts, they’d rather make do with temporary replacements. The message is loud and clear, forget efficiency, forget long-term reforms, and most importantly, forget the judges who have spent years waiting for promotion. Why translate seniority into career progression when you can sideline them for a quick fix?