Advocates appeared:
For Appearing Parties: P.S. Narasimha, Sr. Adv. (A.C.), A. Mariaputham, T.S. Doabia, Ashok Bhan, Nagendra Rao, V. Shekar, C.S. Rajan, Jaydeep Gupta, Ranjit Kumar, Arvind Varma, Raju Ramachandran, Sr. Advs., Manish Singhvi, Manjit Singh, Anil Grover, AAG, S.W.A. Qadri, Imtiaz Ahmed, Sunita Sharma, S.K. Mishra, B.V. Balramdas, Satya Siddiqui, Shailendra Kr. Mishra, S.S. Rawat, Moh. Khairati, D.S. Mehra, Rekha Pandey, Ashwani Garg, Zaid Ali, Aruna Mathur, Yusf Khan, Kaustabh Sinha, S.K. Dwivedi, R.P. Mehrotra, Vandana Mishra, Chander Shekhar Ashri, Rachana Srivastava, Ranchi Daga, Kishor M. Paul, Abha R. Sharma, Ajai Bhalla, Nitin Bhardwaj, Hemal K. Sheth, A. Venayagam Balan, Shiv Mangal Sharma, Ankit Shah, M.K. Shah, Abhinandini Sharma, Sitesh Narayan Singh, Manoj K. Mishra, V.K. Mishra, Shiv Pati B. Pandey, R. Santhan Krishnan, C.S.N. Mohan Rao, D.N. Ray, Lokesh K. Choudhary, Sumita Ray, Satish Chand Gupta, Sarbendra Kumar, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Haresh Raichura, Saroj Raichura, A.D.N. Rao, D. Mahesh Babu, P. Parmeswaran, Kamini Jaiswal, H. Wahi, Rojalin Pradhan, Jesal, Suveni Banerjee, V.N. Raghupathy, K.H. Nobin Singh, Ashok Mathur, Anshul Narayan, Javed Mahmud Rao, Ashok Kumar Singh, T.G.N. Nair, K.N. Madhusoodanan, T.V. Ratnam, Prashant Bhushan, K. Ram Kumar, Gopal Singh, Manish Kumar, Chandan Kumar, Rituraj Biswas, Anil Shrivastav, Anis Suhrawardy, Sanjay R. Hegde, Ranjan Mukherjee, S. Bhowmick, S.C. Ghosh, Deepika Ghatowar, Vartika Sahay, Advs. for Corporate Law Group, J.P. Dhanda, Vikas Upadhyay, B.S. Banthia, V.D. Khanna, T.C. Sharma, V.G. Pragasam, S.J. Aristotle, Prabu Ramasubramanian, M.T. George, Kavita K.T., Raj Kumar Mehta, Revathy Raghavan, A. Subhashini, Radha Shyam Jena, Mukesh K. Giri, Dilip Kr Sharma, Vishwajit Singh, Rajesh Srivastava, Anil K. Jha, Arun K.Sinha, G.S. Chatterjee, Raja Chatterjee, Sachin Das, Sunil Kumar Jain, Janaranjan Das, C.D. Singh, Abhinanya Singh, Sunny Choudhary, P.I. Jose, Sneha Kalita, Siba Sanker Mishra, Ajay Kumar Jha, Pradeep Misra, Manish Kumar Saran, G. Prakash, Sameer Parekh, Advs. for Parekh and Co., Gopal Prasad, Naresh K. Sharma, P.V. Yogeshwaran, S. Sukumaran, Anand Sukumar, Bhupesh Kumar Pathak, Meera Mathur, S.M. Jadhav, Ashok K. Srivastava, Kuldip Singh, Jayesh Gaurav, Soumitro G. Choudhury, Abhijit Sengupta, B.P. Yadav, Anima Kujur, Sampa Sengupta, A. Ramakrishna, Irshad Ahmad, Sunil Fernandes, Krishanu Adhikary, Astha Sharma, K. Enatoli Sema, Edward Belho, Amit Kumar Singh, G.N. Reddy, C. Kannan, Ravi Shankar, K.N. Madhusoodhanan, R. Sathish, Tarjit Singh, Kamal Mohan Gupta, Sanjay Kharde, Asha G. Nair, Venkateswara Rao Anumolu, Prabhakar Parnam, AVS Raju, T. Kanaka Durga, T.N. Singh, Adv., Rajeev Dubey, Kamlendra Mishra, Anil K. Jha, Sunil Kr. Jain, Parmatma Singh, B. Sridhar, K. Ram Kumar, Atul Jha, Sandeep Jha, D.K. Sinha, C.D. Singh, Sunny Chaudhary, Abhimanyu Singh, Noopur Singhal, Jayesh Gaurav, T. Mahipal, Aruneshwar Gupta, Manish Raghav, Nikhil Singh, T. Kanaka Durga, Gaichang Pou Gangmei, D. Siri Rao, Sridhar Potaraju, G. Ramakrishna Prasad, B. Suyodhan, Bharat J. Joshi, Shibashish Misra, P.S. Sudheer, Rishi Maheshwari. Shiv Ram Sharma, D. Bharthi Reddy and Jagjit Singh Chhabra, Advs.

Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:

1. Judges appointed to Fast Track Courts (FTC) on ad hoc and temporary basis do not have any legal right to the post, as their appointments are purely on a temporary and urgent basis, terminable at any time without notice (!) (!) .

2. The FTC scheme was initially intended for limited periods and was to be discontinued once the scheme ended, with no automatic right of regularization or absorption in the permanent judicial cadre (!) (!) .

3. Appointments made under the FTC scheme are on a purely ad hoc basis, and such appointees have no right to claim regular promotion, absorption, or permanent status based solely on their temporary service (!) (!) .

4. The nature of these appointments is temporary, time-bound, and without any guarantee of continuation or regularization, and the appointments are governed by specific rules that emphasize their ad hoc and terminable character (!) (!) .

5. The distinction exists between permanent, temporary, and quasi-permanent posts; only those with a recognized status as permanent or quasi-permanent hold rights to the post, which is not applicable in the case of purely ad hoc FTC appointments (!) (!) .

6. The right to practice law is a statutory right and is not absolute; restrictions such as disqualification rules or rules governing the practice of law after serving as FTC judges are valid and do not amount to an unreasonable restriction, provided they are reasonable and based on public interest (!) (!) .

7. The appointment of FTC judges and their service conditions were made under specific rules that clearly state their temporary and non-permanent nature, and no right to regularization can be inferred from these rules (!) (!) (!) .

8. Discontinuation of the FTC scheme and termination of services of appointees are lawful when based on the scheme's expiry or policy decisions, and such actions are not punitive or stigmatic in nature (!) (!) .

9. The scheme's implementation and the appointments were based on a policy decision by the government, which courts generally do not interfere with unless it is arbitrary, capricious, or mala fide (!) (!) (!) .

10. The courts recognize their limited jurisdiction in policy matters but can issue directions to ensure constitutional rights, such as the right to a speedy trial, are protected, especially when government actions threaten these rights (!) (!) (!) .

11. The constitutional independence of the judiciary is paramount, and policies or decisions that undermine judicial independence or impede the effective functioning of courts are subject to judicial review (!) (!) .

12. The right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right, and the government has a constitutional obligation to provide the necessary infrastructure, judicial personnel, and facilities to ensure fair and expeditious trials. Financial constraints cannot justify the denial of this right (!) (!) (!) .

13. The decision to discontinue the FTC scheme was taken at a high policy level, and courts generally do not interfere with such policy decisions unless they are arbitrary or violate constitutional principles (!) (!) .

14. The government’s policies regarding judicial appointments, regularization, and scheme continuance must be fair, reasonable, and made in accordance with constitutional limitations, with due regard for the independence of the judiciary and the rights of litigants (!) (!) (!) .

15. The courts can issue directions to ensure the effective functioning of the justice system, including the appointment of additional judges, setting up of courts, and measures to reduce pendency and backlog, provided such directions align with constitutional principles and are not merely policy interventions (!) (!) .

16. The allocation of funds and policy decisions regarding judicial infrastructure and schemes are primarily within the domain of the executive, but courts can intervene to prevent violations of fundamental rights or to uphold the rule of law (!) (!) .

17. The right to practice law is subject to regulations and restrictions that serve the larger public interest, and restrictions imposed on FTC judges after their service does not amount to an unreasonable or arbitrary deprivation of their right to practice, provided they are reasonable and lawful (!) (!) .

18. The overall approach emphasizes that appointments under schemes like FTC are temporary, with no inherent right to regularization, and that government policies should be based on reasonableness, fairness, and constitutional principles, with judicial review limited to cases of arbitrariness or violation of fundamental rights (!) (!) (!) .

These points collectively reflect the legal principles and rulings related to the nature of FTC appointments, government policy decisions, judicial review scope, and fundamental rights concerning speedy trials and practice rights.