CarpeDiem IAS • CarpeDiem IAS • CarpeDiem IAS •

Ad hoc judges under Article 224A

20 Dec 2025 GS 2 Polity
Ad hoc judges under Article 224A Click to view full image

Context

The Chief Justice of India Surya Kant highlighted a practical and institutional challenge in using ad hoc judges to reduce the massive pendency of criminal cases in High Courts. Retired judges are reluctant to return because they feel uncomfortable sitting as junior judges alongside younger serving judges, while serving judges also hesitate to sit with retired judges heading the Bench.

This reluctance has weakened the implementation of Article 224A, despite judicial backing.

Pendency and judicial capacity

  • Nearly 19 lakh criminal cases are pending in High Courts.

  • Over 68% pending for more than one year.

  • Against a sanctioned strength of 1,122 judges, about 298 posts are vacant.

This shows a structural deficit in judicial manpower, making ad hoc judges a constitutional necessity rather than an option.

Ad hoc judges

Ad hoc judges are temporary judges engaged to sit and act in High Courts to address exceptional situations, primarily:

  • Long-pending case backlogs (especially criminal appeals)

  • Institutional stress caused by judicial vacancies

They are a stop-gap constitutional mechanism, not a substitute for regular appointments.

Constitutional basis

Article 224A of the Constitution of India

  • Provides that the Chief Justice of a High Court may,
    with the prior consent of the President,
    request a retired High Court judge (of that or another HC) to sit and act as an ad hoc judge.

  • Appointment also requires the consent of the retired judge.

  • The ad hoc judge:

    • Enjoys all jurisdiction, powers, and privileges of a High Court judge

    • Is not deemed to be a permanent judge

    • Is appointed without issuance of a warrant of appointment

  • Article 224A This Article was not part of the Constitution of India, 1950. It was inserted by the Constitution (Fifteenth Amendment) Act, 1963. Constitution of India

NOTE: Ad hoc judges are not appointed by a presidential warrant.
They sit and act on the request of the High Court Chief Justice with prior presidential consent.

Procedure (Memorandum of Procedure, 1998)

The process broadly follows the collegium-based consultation framework, with modifications for Article 224A.

Step-by-step process

  1. Consent of the retired judge is obtained.

  2. Chief Justice of the High Court (CJHC) forwards:

    • Name of the retired judge

    • Proposed tenure
      to the State Chief Minister.

  3. The Chief Minister sends the proposal to the Union Law Minister.

  4. The Law Minister:

    • Consults the Chief Justice of India (CJI).

  5. The recommendation, along with the CJI’s views, is sent to the Prime Minister.

  6. The Prime Minister advises the President.

  7. The President grants prior consent (no warrant of appointment).

Supreme Court jurisprudence

Lok Prahari v. Union of India (2021)

The Supreme Court:

  • Revived Article 224A as a constitutionally valid but dormant provision

  • Held that:

    • Ad hoc judges are an exceptional measure

    • Regular judicial appointments must be prioritised first

    • Proposals must pass through the Supreme Court collegium

  • Initially laid down strict preconditions for invocation.

Conditions to initiate ad hoc appointments (Lok Prahari, 2021)

Original conditions

  1. Vacancy threshold

    • More than 20% of sanctioned strength vacant.

  2. Pendency threshold

    • More than 10% of pending cases older than 5 years.

  3. Regular appointments first

    • Process for regular appointments must already be initiated.

January 30, 2025 Supreme Court directions

Considering over 18 lakh pending criminal cases in High Courts, the Supreme Court:

  • Activated Article 224A more forcefully.

  • Relaxed certain Lok Prahari conditions, keeping them in abeyance.

  • Directed that:

    • High Courts may appoint 2 to 5 ad hoc judges

    • Number of ad hoc judges shall not exceed 10% of the sanctioned strength

    • Ad hoc judges shall primarily hear long-pending criminal appeals

    • They must sit with sitting judges (earlier restriction modified later)

December 2025 clarification (Bench composition)

The Supreme Court clarified that:

  • Ad hoc judges may:

    • Sit as Single Judges, or

    • Sit in Division Benches with sitting High Court judges

  • The Chief Justice of the High Court has discretion to decide:

    • Bench composition

    • Who presides over a mixed bench

This resolved concerns of:

  • Retired judges unwilling to sit as juniors

  • Sitting judges reluctant to sit under retired judges

Selection process

  • Each High Court Chief Justice should prepare a panel of retired or soon-to-retire judges.

  • Since nominees are former judges:

    • Intelligence Bureau verification may be bypassed, expediting the process.

Tenure

  • Generally 2 to 3 years

  • Number typically 2–5 judges, subject to:

    • Pendency

    • Vacancies

    • Supreme Court ceiling of 10% of sanctioned strength

Role and duties

  • Primarily assigned to:

    • Criminal appeals pending for more than 5 years

  • Prohibited from:

    • Legal practice

    • Arbitration

    • Advisory roles

    • Client representation

Emoluments and allowances

  • Paid salary and allowances equivalent to a permanent High Court judge

  • Pension excluded, as they already draw retirement benefits

Previous appointments under Article 224A

Only three instances, highlighting its long dormancy:

  1. Justice Suraj Bhan → Madhya Pradesh HC (1972)

    • One year; election petitions

  2. Justice P. Venugopal → Madras HC (1982; renewed in 1983)

  3. Justice O.P. Srivastava → Allahabad HC (2007)

    • Ayodhya title suit

The Supreme Court has repeatedly referred to Article 224A as a “dormant constitutional provision.”

Present status (as of 2025)

  • Despite Supreme Court directions (Jan 30, 2025):

    • Union Law Ministry has not yet received proposals from most High Courts

  • Reasons cited:

    • Institutional hesitation

    • Seniority concerns

    • Administrative coordination issues

  • Implementation remains slow and uneven.

Prelims Practice MCQs

Q. With reference to Article 224A of the Constitution of India, consider the following statements:

  1. A retired High Court judge may sit and act as an ad hoc judge on the request of the Chief Justice of the High Court concerned.

  2. Such request requires the prior consent of the President of India.

  3. An ad hoc judge is deemed to be a permanent judge of the High Court during the period of appointment.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

A. 1 and 2 only
B. 2 and 3 only
C. 1 and 3 only
D. 1, 2 and 3

Correct answer: A

Explanation:

  • Statement 1 is correct: Request is made by the Chief Justice of the High Court.

  • Statement 2 is correct: Prior consent of the President is mandatory.

  • Statement 3 is incorrect: An ad hoc judge is not deemed to be a permanent judge.

Q. With reference to Lok Prahari v. Union of India (2021), consider the following:

  1. The Supreme Court held that Article 224A should be used only after initiating the process for regular judicial appointments.

  2. The Court described Article 224A as a routinely used mechanism in High Courts.

  3. The judgment required recommendations for ad hoc judges to pass through the Supreme Court collegium.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

A. 1 and 3 only
B. 1 only
C. 2 and 3 only
D. 1, 2 and 3

Correct answer: A

Explanation:

  • Statement 1 is correct: Ad hoc judges are a stop-gap, not a substitute.

  • Statement 2 is incorrect: The Court called Article 224A a “dormant provision.”

  • Statement 3 is correct: Collegium scrutiny was mandated.



← Back to list