Can ad-hoc judges help reduce backlog?

• The Supreme Court of India has allowed High Courts to appoint retired judges on an ad-hoc basis to address the backlog of cases.

• These judges are authorized to hear only criminal appeals as part of a bench led by a sitting judge.

• Justice Rajeev Shakdher and Shadan Farasat discuss the potential of appointing ad-hoc judges to reduce pendency.

• Shakdher believes the move is commendable, but argues that the practice should have been introduced earlier due to the backlog of 62 lakh cases.

• Farasat expresses concern about the need for presidential approval for appointing ad-hoc judges, which depends on the executive’s willingness to act.

• Shakdher suggests that the appointment of ad-hoc judges is unlikely to interfere with the regular judicial appointment process, as both operate independently.

• Farasat suggests that the process must be simplified, with the Chief Justice of the relevant High Court directly recommending a candidate to the Supreme Court collegium after securing their consent.

• Farasat suggests that the ad-hoc appointments should follow a summary process, with retired judges being the primary decision-makers.

Ad-hoc Judge Appointments in India: A Discussion

• Ad-hoc judges serve for a limited term of two to three years and do not compete with sitting judges.

• They do not affect the seniority of High Court judges for elevation as Chief Justices or to the Supreme Court.

• Ad-hoc judges do not affect promotions within the district judiciary.

• The appointment of ad-hoc judges does not affect the elevation of service judges in the district judiciary.

• The government must ensure the availability of essential personnel such as stenographers, private secretaries, and court masters.

• The government should allocate the necessary budget for reducing arrears.

• The executive’s willingness to cooperate is key to repurposing existing courtrooms.

• Persuading judges to return to the system will be challenging due to the perks and privileges offered.

• Senior lawyers as ad-hoc judges present a major hurdle: they are barred from practising in the same High Court after serving the stipulated term.

• Judicial independence is a state of mind, and social interactions do not compromise judicial independence.

• Ad-hoc appointments do not lead to dissatisfaction as they serve for a limited period, fulfill their role, and move on.