Supreme Court explores ad hoc judges for criminal appeal backlog | India News

NEW DELHI: As pending cases continue to mount in high courts because of multiple reasons, including judge vacancies not being filled, Supreme Court Tuesday said it was time to appoint ad hoc judges in HCs — invoking Article 224A of the Constitution — who would be part of division benches headed by a permanent judge of the HC and would adjudicate criminal appeals.
A bench of Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justices B R Gavai and Surya Kant said the number of criminal appeals pending in HCs was substantial and per-judge pendency of cases too was acute, and that the apex court’s 2021 verdict needed to be modified to pave the way for appointment of ad hoc judges in HCs.
As many convicts in criminal cases languish in jails waiting for their appeals to be heard, SC had earlier expressed concern over pendency of such cases.

SC says 2021 ad hoc judges order needs tweaking, seeks AG’s view

While examining the rate of disposal compared to filing of fresh criminal appeals in the Allahabad high court between 2000 and 2021, it came to light that a fresh appeal would take on average 35 years to be decided, as during the 21-year period, 1.7 lakh appeals were filed against disposal of only 31,000 cases.
Pointing to pendency of criminal appeal cases, the bench said that around 63,000 cases were pending in Allahabad high court, 20,000 in Patna HC, 20,000 in Karnataka HC and 21,000 in Punjab and Haryana HC. The court said ad hoc judges could be appointed to deal with this problem but clarified that it would be allowed only to adjudicate cases of criminal appeals and no other case.
“Per-judge pendency is also very high in some high courts. We have a feeling that criminal appeals before the division bench can be taken up by one sitting judge as the senior judge, and one ad hoc judge,” the bench said.
The bench said the Supreme Court’s 2021 judgment, by which guidelines were framed for appointment of ad hoc judges, needed to be modified, and sought the opinion of attorney general R Venkataramani.
The court had mentioned various trigger points for appointment of ad hoc judges in HCs, including if vacancies were more than 20% of the sanctioned strength.
It had also clarified that the recourse to Article 224A was not an alternative to regular appointments.
“We have given deep thought to the slightly different perspectives placed before us by way of affidavits by the different high courts and the Union of India. While emphasising that recourse to Article 224A is the necessity of the day, and without inhibiting the expanse of the powers conferred on the chief justice of the high court as per the Constitution, it would be in the fitness of things to lay down some guidelines for assistance of chief justices of high courts and to make the provision a ‘live letter’,” the court had said.