SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(SC) 384

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SANJIV KHANNA, C.J., B.R. GAVAI, SURYA KANT, JJ.
Lok Prahari through its General Secretary S.N.Shukla I.A.S. (Retd) - Appellant
Versus
Union of India - Respondent
W.P. (C) No. 1236 of 2019
Decided on : 30-01-2025

The court emphasizes the need for flexible judicial appointments under Article 224A to address the backlog of cases in High Courts.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 224A - Appointment of ad-hoc Judges - The court addresses the backlog of cases pending in High Courts, emphasizing the need for a dynamic approach to judicial processes. The court decides to keep certain conditions regarding the appointment of ad-hoc Judges in abeyance due to the high number of pending cases. (Paras 1-5)

(B) Judicial Administration - The court recognizes the necessity of appointing ad-hoc Judges to alleviate the backlog, allowing each High Court to appoint between 2 to 5 ad-hoc Judges, not exceeding 10% of the sanctioned strength. (Paras 5-6)

Facts of the case:
The judgment discusses the significant backlog of cases in High Courts, with over 62,00,000 cases pending, necessitating a flexible approach to judicial appointments.

Findings of Court:
The court maintains the abeyance of certain conditions regarding ad-hoc Judge appointments and allows High Courts to appoint ad-hoc Judges to expedite case resolution.

Issues: The main issue addressed is the backlog of cases in High Courts and the appropriate measures to appoint ad-hoc Judges.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the appointment of ad-hoc Judges under Article 224A should be flexible to address the backlog, allowing for appointments even when vacancies exceed 20% of the sanctioned strength.

Result: Observations and conditions regarding ad-hoc Judges' appointments are kept in abeyance.

ORDER

1. In the judgment and order dated 20.04.2021, this Court refers to the unprecedented situation arising from the backlog of cases pending before the High Courts, and that any Constitution has to be dynamic as to sub-serve and endeavour to serve an existing problem. Secondly, the judgment and order dated 20.04.2021 states that it would not be appropriate to close the proceedings, but a concept of continuing mandamus would be appropriate to work out the recourse to Article 224A of the Constitution of India.

2. As per the National Judicial Data Grid, recent data indicates that there has been an increase in pendency levels in almost all the High Courts. Around 62,00,000 (Sixty Two Lakhs) cases are pending before the High Courts in India as on 25.01.2025, of which more than 18,20,000 (Eighteen Lakhs Twenty Thousands) cases are criminal cases and more than 44,00,000 (Forty Lakhs) cases are civil cases.

3. Having regard to the aforesaid position, we are inclined to keep the observations/conditions stipulated in paragraphs 43, 50, 54 and 55 of the judgment and order dated 20.04.2021 that recourse to the appointment of ad-hoc Judges under Article 224A of the Constitution of India should not be made unless 80% of the sanctioned strength is already either recommended or working, in abeyance. In other words, the requirement that the vacancies should not be more than 20% of the sanctioned strength, will be kept in abeyance for the time being.

4. Paragraph 61 of the impugned judgment and order dated 20.04.2021 will also remain in abeyance in terms of directions issued today.

5. We further observe that in the facts of the present case, each High Court may take recourse to Article 224A of the Constitution of India for the appointment of ad-hoc Judges between 2 to 5 in number, but not exceeding 10% of the sanctioned strength. The ad-hoc Judges will sit in a Bench presided over by a sitting Judge of the High Court and decide pending criminal appeals.

6. The Memorandum of Procedure already in place, will be applied and resorted to for such appointments.

7. Liberty is given to the parties to move an appropriate application, if necessary. The Bench will reassemble for further directions, if required and necessary.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top