• Ad hoc judges are retired judges temporarily reappointed to address specific needs, such as reducing case backlogs or filling gaps when permanent judges are unavailable.
• Constitutional Basis: Article 224-A of the Indian Constitution, introduced by the Constitution (Fifteenth Amendment) Act, 1963, allows the appointment of retired judges to High Courts on an ad-hoc basis.

Legal Framework

• Article 224-A: Allows the Chief Justice of a High Court to request retired judges to act as judges of the High Court with the previous consent of the President.
• Retired judges must consent to the appointment.
• They receive allowances as determined by the President and exercise the same jurisdiction, powers, and privileges as sitting High Court judges.
• Memorandum of Procedure (MoP), 1998: Outlines the detailed process for ad-hoc appointments.
• Formulated after the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (1993) case, which established the collegium system.

Conditions for Ad-Hoc Appointments

• Lok Prahari v. Union of India (2021):
• Ad-hoc judges can be appointed when:
• Vacancies exceed 20% of the sanctioned strength.
• Cases in a specific category have been pending for over five years.
• More than 10% of the High Court’s cases are pending for over five years.
• Case disposal rate is lower than the rate at which new cases are filed (case clearance rate).
• Panel Formation: Chief Justices should form a panel of retired and soon-to-retire judges, evaluating their past performance in terms of case quality and quantity.
• Tenure: Typically 2 to 3 years, with 2 to 5 ad-hoc judges per High Court.
• Timeframe: The entire process should be completed within three months.
• Supreme Court Order (January 30, 2025):
• Relaxed the condition that ad-hoc appointments can only be made if vacancies exceed 20% of the sanctioned strength.
• Ad-hoc judges can now be appointed even if vacancies are below 20%.
• Restrictions:
• Ad-hoc judges can only hear criminal appeals and must be part of a Bench led by a sitting judge.
• Number of ad-hoc judges cannot exceed 10% of the sanctioned strength (2 to 5 judges per High Court).
• Allowances and Benefits: Lok Prahari Case (2021)
• Ad-hoc judges receive the same pay and allowances as permanent High Court judges, excluding pension.
• Payments are drawn from the Consolidated Fund of India.
• Entitled to rent-free accommodation or housing allowance, similar to permanent judges.

Historical Instances of Ad-Hoc Appointments

• Only three documented instances:
• 1972: Justice Suraj Bhan appointed to the Madhya Pradesh High Court to adjudicate election petitions.
• 1982: Justice P. Venugopal appointed to the Madras High Court.
• 2007: Justice O.P. Srivastava appointed to the Allahabad High Court to preside over the Ayodhya title suits.

Arguments in Favor 

• Addressing Judicial Backlog: Ad-hoc judges can help reduce this backlog by focusing on long-pending cases, especially those pending for over five years.
• As of January 2025, there are 62 lakh pending cases in High Courts.
• Utilizing Experienced Judges: Retired judges bring decades of judicial experience, which can be leveraged to handle complex and long-pending cases efficiently.
• Justice O.P. Srivastava, appointed as an ad-hoc judge in the Allahabad High Court in 2007, presided over the Ayodhya title suits, demonstrating the effectiveness of experienced judges in handling sensitive and high-profile cases.
• Temporary Solution for Vacancies: Ad-hoc judges can fill these gaps temporarily while regular appointments are processed.
• As of 2025, there are 367 vacancies out of a sanctioned strength of 1,122 judges in High Courts, leading to a 30% vacancy rate.
• Faster Disposal of Criminal Appeals: Ad-hoc judges are specifically tasked with hearing criminal appeals, which constitute a significant portion of pending cases.
• In the Lok Prahari case (2021), the Supreme Court directed that ad-hoc judges should focus on cases pending for over five years, particularly criminal appeals, to expedite justice delivery.
• No Interference with Regular Appointments: Ad-hoc appointments do not hinder the regular appointment process for permanent judges.
• The Supreme Court clarified in its 2025 order that ad-hoc judges are appointed for a fixed term of 2-3 years and do not affect the seniority or promotion of sitting judges.
• Strengthening Public Trust in the Judiciary: India ranks 111th in civil justice and 93rd in criminal justice in the World Justice Project’s Rule of Law Index (2023).
• People will be more likely to seek legal remedies if they believe their cases won’t remain stuck for years.

Arguments Against

• Temporary Fix, Not a Long-Term Solution: Ad-hoc judges provide only a short-term solution to the problem of judicial backlog and vacancies, without addressing the root causes such as inadequate regular appointments and poor judicial infrastructure.
• The Law Commission of India has repeatedly emphasized the need for increasing the number of permanent judges to address the backlog, rather than relying on temporary measures.
• Risk of Undermining Judicial Independence: Ad-hoc judges, being retired and potentially seeking post-retirement benefits, may face conflicts of interest or pressure from the executive, undermining judicial independence.
• The Lok Prahari case (2021) highlighted concerns that ad-hoc appointments could lead to “inaction in making recommendations” for regular judicial appointments, potentially politicizing the judiciary.
• Lack of Accountability: Ad-hoc judges, serving for a limited term, may lack the same level of accountability as permanent judges, who are subject to long-term performance reviews and disciplinary mechanisms.
• The 245th Law Commission Report (2014) expressed concerns about the accountability of ad-hoc judges, noting that their short tenure could lead to inconsistent judicial decisions.
• Strain on Judicial Infrastructure: Appointing ad-hoc judges without corresponding improvements in court infrastructure and support staff can exacerbate existing problems, such as overcrowded courtrooms and insufficient clerical support.
• A 2024 report published by the Ministry of Law and Justice highlighted that 45% of judicial officers lack electronic display facilities, and 32.7% lack video conferencing capabilities, indicating poor infrastructure.
• Discouragement of Regular Judicial Appointments: The reliance on ad-hoc judges may discourage efforts to fill permanent judicial vacancies, leading to a vicious cycle of temporary appointments and persistent vacancies.
• The Supreme Court’s 2025 order relaxed the condition that ad-hoc appointments can only be made if vacancies exceed 20%, potentially reducing the urgency to fill regular vacancies.

Road ahead

• Increase Regular Judicial Appointments: Focus on filling permanent judicial positions to reduce reliance on ad-hoc judges.
• The current judge-population ratio in India is approximately 21 judges per million, far below the 50 judges per million recommended by the Law Commission’s 120th Report.
• Improve Judicial Infrastructure:  Increase the use of video conferencing and e-courts to reduce adjournments and speed up hearings.
• Fast-track Case Management Systems: AI-based case prioritization can help clear long-pending cases efficiently.
• Enhance Training and Capacity Building: Provide continuous training and capacity-building programs for judges to improve their efficiency and case disposal rates.
• The National Judicial Academy (NJA) in India offers various training programs for judges, but these need to be expanded and made more accessible.
• Implement Judicial Impact Assessment: Conduct judicial impact assessments for new legislation to anticipate the potential increase in caseload and plan accordingly.
• Justice M. Jagannadha Rao Committee recommended judicial impact assessments for every new Bill to estimate the additional cases it might generate.
• Leverage Technology: Utilize technology such as e-courts, video conferencing, and case management systems to streamline judicial processes.
• The E-Courts Mission Mode Project in India has started digitalizing case records, but full implementation is needed across all High Courts.
• Periodic Review and Monitoring: Regularly review the effectiveness of ad-hoc appointments and make necessary adjustments to ensure they meet their intended purpose.
• The Lok Prahari case (2021) recommended that the appointment process for ad-hoc judges be completed within three months to ensure timely justice delivery.

The Supreme Court’s ruling on ad-hoc judge appointments provides a temporary relief to the mounting backlog of cases, especially criminal appeals. However, long-term judicial reforms, faster regular appointments, and improved infrastructure are essential to ensure sustainable justice delivery. Ad-hoc judges should be a supplementary measure, not a substitute for systemic improvements in India’s judiciary.