New
Latest Articles
InclusiveIAS
.

Ad Hoc Judges in India: Supreme Court Guidelines, Benefits, Issues and Reforms

  • Home
  • Ad Hoc Judges in India: Supreme Court Guidelines, Benefits, Issues and Reforms
Shape Image One

Ad Hoc Judges in India: Supreme Court Guidelines, Benefits, Issues and Reforms

Ad hoc judges are judges appointed temporarily to deal with shortage of judges, arrears of work or special situations where the regular strength of the court is insufficient.  

In India, ad hoc judges are mainly discussed in two contexts:

  • Article 127 — appointment of ad hoc judges in the Supreme Court.
  • Article 224A(Also informally called adhoc HC Judges)  — appointment of retired judges as ad hoc judges in High Courts.

Constitutional Provisions

  • Article 127 — Ad hoc Judges in Supreme Court
    • If there is no quorum of judges available to hold or continue a session of the Supreme Court, the CJI may, with previous consent of the President and after consultation with the Chief Justice of the concerned High Court, request a High Court judge to sit as an ad hoc judge of the Supreme Court.
  • Article 224A — Appointment of Retired Judges(Also informally called adhoc HC Judges)
    • Article 224A — Chief Justice of a High Court — with previous consent of President — may at any time request any person who has previously held the office of permanent judge of that or any other High Court to sit and act as a judge of that High Court
    • Article 224A added through the 15th Constitutional Amendment Act,1963
    •  Reason : Not specified in the constitution

Instances of Ad Hoc Judge Appointments

  • Justice Suraj Bhan — Madhya Pradesh High Court, 1972 
  • Justice P. Venugopal — Madras High Court, 1982–83 
  • Justice O.P. Srivastava — Allahabad High Court, 2007 
  • Allahabad High Court — 2026
    • On 3 February 2026, the Supreme Court Collegium recommended the appointment of five retired judges as ad hoc judges of the Allahabad High Court under Article 224A for two years.

Rationale / Need for Ad hoc Judges

  • Reducing judicial pendency
    • High Courts face huge pendency, especially in old civil and criminal appeals. Ad hoc judges can help dispose of long-pending cases without waiting for full regular recruitment.
      • 60 lakh cases pending in High Courts — the largest component of India’s judicial backlog — ad hoc mechanism providing immediate capacity augmentation 
      • Allahabad, Bombay, Rajasthan, Madras — High Courts with highest pendency — ad hoc appointments directly targeting oldest pending cases
      • Old cases — cases pending 5–10 years — requiring judicial attention — permanent judges overwhelmed by fresh filings — ad hoc judges specifically addressing accumulated backlog
  • Temporary response to vacancies
    • Regular judicial appointments often face delays. Ad hoc appointments provide a temporary solution when vacancies and arrears are high.
  • Use of experienced judicial manpower
    • Retired High Court judges possess experience in judgment writing, court procedure and case management. Their expertise can be used to clear the backlog.
      • Retired judges — accumulated judicial wisdom — experience across diverse legal areas — immediately productive without training period
      • Domain expertise — retired judges with specific expertise — commercial law, criminal law, constitutional law — assigned relevant case categories — efficient allocation
      • No learning curve — unlike newly appointed permanent judges requiring orientation — retired judges immediately functional
      • Institutional memory — long-serving judges familiar with High Court’s practices, precedents, local legal landscape — valuable continuity
  • Targeted disposal of old cases
    • Ad hoc judges can be assigned specific categories of cases such as old criminal appeals, civil appeals, tax matters or land acquisition cases.
  • Improves access to timely justice
    • Pendency affects Article 21 and the right to speedy justice. Ad hoc judges can help reduce delays and improve citizens’ trust in courts.
      • Constitutional mandate — speedy trial — Article 21 — High Court ad hoc mechanism a constitutional response to constitutional violation caused by pendency

Supreme Court Guidelines on Ad hoc Judges

The Supreme Court revived Article 224A in Lok Prahari v. Union of India, 2021, calling it a “dormant provision” that could be used to address High Court arrears, while clarifying that it should not become a substitute for regular appointments. The Court noted that High Courts were facing high vacancies and pendency, and laid down conditions for invoking Article 224A.

  • 2021 Guidelines — Lok Prahari v. Union of India 
    • Trigger point
    • Article 224A may be invoked where vacancies are more than 20% of sanctioned strength, or where cases in a particular category are pending for over five years, or where more than 10% of pending cases are over five years old or the disposal rate is lower than the rate of new case filings.
    • Pre-recommendation process
      • Past performance in terms of quality and quantum of disposal 
      • Chief Justice of High Court must prepare a panel of judges and former judges 
      • Recommendation should be routed through the SC Collegium
    • Appointment and tenure 
      • Recommendations by the Chief Justice of the High Court should be made three months in advance 
      • Number of appointments generally should be 2 to 5 
      • Tenure should be 2-3 years
      • Division bench should only be constituted by ad hoc judges 
      • Emoluments and allowances should be at par with a permanent judge minus pension
  • Key 2025 SC Relaxed Guidelines 
    • Removed – Condition of appointment of ad hoc judges if the vacancies are more than 20% of the sanctioned strength.
    • Each High Court may appoint 2 to 5 ad hoc judges, subject to a ceiling of 10% of sanctioned strength.
    • They should mainly deal with pending criminal appeals.
    • They should sit on a Bench headed by a sitting High Court judge.

Benefits of Ad hoc Judges

  • Quick augmentation of judicial capacity
    • Ad hoc judges increase disposal capacity without waiting for the full regular appointment cycle.
  • Useful for backlog clearance
    • They can be assigned old cases and category-specific arrears, reducing pendency in a targeted way.
  • Experienced judges
    • Retired judges require less training and can immediately begin hearing matters.
  • Cost-effective temporary mechanism
    • It is a temporary arrangement and does not permanently expand sanctioned strength.
  • Helps undertrial and criminal justice system
    • If used for old criminal appeals, it can reduce prolonged uncertainty for convicts, victims and families.

Challenges

  • Dependence on executive approval:
    • Appointment of ad hoc judges under Article 224A requires the previous consent of the President. Hence, the process depends on executive cooperation and may face delays if coordination between the High Court, Collegium and Government is slow. 
  • Not a substitute for regular appointments
    • Overdependence on ad hoc judges may reduce pressure to fill regular judicial vacancies.
      • SC expressed concerns that Article 224A could delay regular judge appointments. 
  • Limited scope of use:
    • Recent Supreme Court directions focus mainly on pending criminal appeals. Hence, ad hoc judges may have limited impact on the overall backlog across civil, commercial, tax, service and constitutional matters. 
  • Limited availability and incentives:
    • Retired judges may not always be willing or physically able to return to heavy judicial work. Some may prefer arbitration, mediation, commissions or private legal work due to better flexibility and financial incentives. 
  • Infrastructure constraints:
    • Ad hoc judges still require courtrooms, staff, stenographers, law researchers, digital records and registry support. Without additional infrastructure, merely appointing retired judges may not improve disposal significantly. 
  • Independence concerns
    • Since retired judges are being reappointed, it may create a perception that judges may look forward to post-retirement judicial assignments. This concern must be addressed through objective selection and limited tenure. 
  • Transparency in selection
    • Selection of retired judges may raise concerns if criteria such as merit, disposal rate, integrity and recent judicial performance are not clearly disclosed.
  • Limited impact on structural pendency
    • Ad hoc judges can reduce some arrears, but pendency also arises from procedural delays, poor infrastructure, government litigation, vacancies, adjournments and weak case management.
  • Temporary and narrow solution
    • Ad hoc judges are useful for old pending cases, but they cannot address long-term capacity gaps in the judiciary.
  • Functioning Concerns
    • Seniority and protocol — retired judges sitting alongside permanent judges — seniority questions — courtroom protocol — institutional friction 
      • Chief Justice of India Surya Kant —  retired High Court judges are reluctant to return to the Bench as ad hoc judges to clear the massive pendency of criminal cases for a simple reason: they are “embarrassed” to sit as junior judges alongside younger colleagues.

Way Forward

  • Operationalise Article 224A — High Courts with highest pendency — Allahabad, Bombay, Rajasthan — immediate invocation — targeting oldest pending cases
  • Transparent selection — published criteria for retired judge selection — merit-based — not based on personal relationships or executive preference
  • Transparent and time-bound process — The process involving the High Court Chief Justice, Supreme Court Collegium and President’s consent should follow fixed timelines to avoid delays.
  • Category allocation — retired judges assigned specific case categories matching their expertise — maximising efficiency of limited ad hoc capacity
    • Allow ad-hoc judges to preside over civil, commercial, and writ cases to address the backlog comprehensively across all types of litigation. 
  • Performance monitoring — regular assessment of retired judges’ performance under Article 224A — renewal based on demonstrated effectiveness 
    • High Courts should periodically review disposal of cases assigned to ad hoc judges, but without interfering with their judicial decision-making.
  • Adequate infrastructure support — Additional judges require courtrooms, registry staff, stenographers, law researchers, digital records and listing support. Without infrastructure, appointment alone will not improve disposal.
  • Safeguards for independence — To address post-retirement dependence concerns, appointments should be for a fixed tenure, based on objective criteria, and should not be repeatedly extended without clear justification.
  • Addressing Root Causes Simultaneously 
    • Permanent vacancy filling — priority — High Court permanent vacancies — filling these delivers more capacity than ad hoc appointments
    • Sanctioned strength increase — High Court sanctioned strength — not revised proportionately to population and litigation growth — constitutional amendment or presidential order required
    • Case management reform — reducing adjournments, improving scheduling, digital hearings — addressing pendency without requiring more judges
    • Filtering mechanisms — Gram Nyayalayas, Lok Adalats, mediation — diverting cases from High Courts — reducing inflow rather than only increasing capacity

Ad hoc judges under Article 224A can be a useful temporary tool to address High Court pendency. However, they are not a substitute for regular judicial appointments and structural reforms. The ideal approach is regular appointments first, ad hoc judges for targeted backlog clearance, and long-term reforms in infrastructure, procedure and case management. 

Ad hoc judges are the judiciary’s overtime workers — valuable when the regular workforce is overwhelmed, but no substitute for hiring enough permanent staff. India’s High Courts need both the immediate relief of retired judges returning to service and the structural transformation of a permanent appointment system that fills vacancies before they become crises.

Sample Mains Question

  1. Explain the constitutional provisions governing the appointment of ad hoc judges in the Supreme Court and High Courts. Distinguish between Articles 127 and 224A. (10 Marks, 150 Words)
  2. Discuss the rationale behind the revival of Article 224A by the Supreme Court in Lok Prahari v. Union of India. (10 Marks, 150 Words)
  3. Ad hoc judges can provide immediate relief from judicial pendency but cannot substitute regular appointments. Examine. (15 Marks, 250 Words)

✍️ Curated by InclusiveIAS Editorial Team

At InclusiveIAS, our editorial team is led by experts who have successfully cleared multiple stages of the UPSC Civil Services Examination, including Mains and Interview. With deep insights into the demands of the exam, we focus on crafting content that is accurate, exam-relevant, and easy to grasp.

Whether it’s Polity, Current Affairs, GS papers, or Optional subjects, our notes are designed to:

  • Break down complex topics into simple, structured points

  • Align strictly with the UPSC syllabus and PYQ trends

  • Save your time by offering crisp yet comprehensive coverage

  • Help you score more with smart presentation, keywords, and examples

🟢 Every article, note, and test is not just written—but carefully edited to ensure it helps you study faster, revise better, and write answers like a topper.

Telegram Channel Links

InclusiveIAS

Answer Writing Group

Essay Writing Group

UPSC PRELIMS NOTES

Polity

International Relations

Environment

Economy

Science and Technology

Geography

History and Culture

Mapping

UPSC MAINS NOTES

General Studies - 4 (Ethics)

General Studies - 3

General Studies - 2

General Studies - 1