Summary
To address High Court arrears, the Court activated Article 224A through guidelines for consenting retired judges to sit as ad hoc judges with prior presidential consent. The 2021 framework supplemented regular appointments, set triggers and an embargo where regular recommendations were insufficient, and prescribed selection, tenure, work and remuneration. Proceedings remained pending as a continuing mandamus for progress review and possible refinement.
Issues
- How Article 224A could be used to address High Court arrears without replacing regular judicial appointments.
- What selection, appointment, tenure, work-allocation and remuneration safeguards should govern the initial framework.
Provisions considered
- Article 224A, Constitution of IndiaActivated the power to request consenting retired High Court judges to sit and act, subject to prior presidential consent and the guidelines issued in this judgment. (¶¶ 5-6, 40-66)
Held
- Article 224A permits a Chief Justice, with prior presidential consent and the retired judge’s consent, to request a former judge of that or another High Court to sit and act with judicial jurisdiction, powers and privileges. It is a supplementary means of addressing arrears and cannot excuse failure to pursue regular appointments. (¶¶ 5-6, 40-45)
- The 2021 triggers included vacancies exceeding 20 per cent of sanctioned strength, old cases in a category, more than 10 per cent of backlog over five years old, or disposal persistently below institution. Recourse was barred if recommendations had not been made for more than 20 per cent of regular vacancies. (¶ 53-55)
- Selection should reflect past disposal quality and quantity, subject expertise and pendency data, with a panel and personal interaction to obtain consent. Recently retired judges were preferred without an absolute one-year retirement cutoff. Recommendations had to pass through the Supreme Court collegium with prior presidential consent; the existing memorandum procedure was to be tried initially. (¶¶ 44-46, 55-56)
- About three months should suffice to process an ad hoc recommendation. Appointment would generally last two to three years, with initially two to five ad hoc judges per High Court depending on need; they would not count towards sanctioned strength. These were guidelines for the initial framework, not exhaustive constitutional limits. (¶¶ 57-59, 65)
- Work should primarily concern cases older than five years, with Chief Justice discretion for exigencies. No administrative duties or other legal work were permitted. Under this initial framework Division Benches could consist only of ad hoc judges. (¶ 60-61)
- Emoluments, allowances and benefits should match permanent or additional judges, minus pension, with accommodation or equivalent housing allowance. Salary and allowances were charged on the Consolidated Fund of India. The Court retained continuing supervision, recognising possible later modification of the guidelines. (¶¶ 48-50, 62-66)
Result
Guidelines issued for activating Article 224A; proceedings retained as a continuing mandamus and listed after four months with a Ministry of Justice progress report required.