Back
Allahabad HCBA Objects to SC Collegium's Proposal
In a bold and unprecedented move, the has fired off a formal letter to the President of India, with copies to the Chief Justice of India (CJI) and the Union Law Minister, vehemently opposing the Collegium's recommendation to appoint five retired judges as ad-hoc members to the . Dated , the representation labels the proposal as "inexplicable" and a source of "consternation" among the state's legal fraternity. At the heart of the objection lies a critique of the selection process under , questions over the merit and performance of the nominees, and a strong advocacy for regular appointments to address chronic vacancies rather than relying on temporary fixes from retired jurists. This development underscores deepening tensions in India's judicial appointment ecosystem, where efforts to tackle mounting case backlogs clash with demands for transparency and fairness in elevating serving advocates and judicial officers.
The , one of India's most overburdened constitutional courts, faces a staggering of over a million cases, exacerbated by persistent vacancies in its sanctioned strength of 160 judges. The Collegium's proposal aims to inject immediate relief by invoking Article 224-A, which allows for the appointment of retired High Court judges on a temporary basis to aid in . However, the HCBA argues that this move not only bypasses established norms but also sidesteps the opportunity to permanently strengthen the bench through from the bar and lower judiciary. As legal professionals await responses from the highest echelons of government and the judiciary, this episode highlights the fragility of the and the urgent need for systemic reforms.
Background on in India
To fully grasp the import of the HCBA's objections, it is essential to contextualize the constitutional and procedural framework governing . Article 224-A, inserted into the Constitution via the in , empowers the Chief Justice of a High Court, with the previous consent of the President, to request the appointment of a retired High Court judge as an for a specified period. The provision was designed as a pragmatic tool to address temporary surges in workload or vacancies, ensuring continuity in judicial administration without the full rigors of permanent appointment processes.
This mechanism operates alongside the broader , established through a series of landmark judgments—the and —which shifted the primacy of from the executive to a collegium comprising senior judges of the . The collegium recommends appointments and transfers for High Courts, which are then formalized by the President on the advice of the Union Government. However, Article 224-A has traditionally been viewed as a High Court-specific power, exercisable at the discretion of the Chief Justice of that court, rather than a domain for the Collegium's intervention.
Historically, ad-hoc appointments under Article 224-A have been resorted to sporadically, often in response to acute crises. For instance, during periods of high vacancy rates in the 1980s and 1990s, several High Courts, including Allahabad, utilized retired judges to maintain docket flow. Yet, critics have long argued that such measures serve as mere palliatives, failing to address underlying issues like delays in the collegium's recommendation process or executive bottlenecks in notifications. As of , India grapples with approximately 400 vacancies across all High Courts, representing about 40% of the total sanctioned strength—a figure that has hovered alarmingly high for years, contributing to nationwide exceeding 6 crore cases in subordinate courts and High Courts combined.
The exemplifies this crisis. Servicing the most populous state, Uttar Pradesh, it handles a diverse caseload spanning civil, criminal, and constitutional matters. Recent data from the indicates that the court's rate has worsened, with average disposal times stretching beyond two years for many matters. In this backdrop, the Collegium's proposal emerges not as an isolated decision but as part of a reactive strategy to judicial understaffing, one that the HCBA contends undermines long-term institutional health.
The Collegium's Controversial Proposal
The Collegium, led by the CJI and comprising the four senior-most judges, recently recommended the names of five retired judges for ad-hoc appointments under Article 224-A. While the sources do not explicitly name the fifth judge, the four highlighted in the HCBA's critique are Justices Mohd. Aslam, Renu Agarwal, Jyotsana Sharma, and Syed Aftab Hussain Rizvi. These jurists, all recent retirees, were purportedly selected to bolster the court's capacity and expedite case resolutions.
The Collegium's rationale, as inferred from public statements, centers on the nominees' prior experience and availability to contribute immediately to reduction. Proponents of the move argue that ad-hoc infusions are vital in high-volume courts like Allahabad, where new permanent appointees can take months to onboard due to security clearances and infrastructure setup. This proposal aligns with occasional past endorsements by the Collegium for similar temporary roles, reflecting a pragmatic approach to an entrenched problem.
However, the HCBA's letter portrays the selection as arbitrary, stating that the five choices
"appear to have been picked out of the blue from amongst a pool of retired judges, unaccompanied by any exercise of choosing the best from the available pool."
This accusation of caprice without rigorous evaluation strikes at the core of the
's much-debated opacity, a criticism that has fueled calls for greater accountability since the aborted
experiment in
.
HCBA's Strong Objections and Letter to Authorities
The HCBA, representing thousands of advocates practicing in the , has positioned itself as the voice of the legal fraternity in this matter. In their , representation, they describe the Collegium's action as a "cause for consternation," emphasizing its potential to erode trust in the appointment process. By addressing the President directly—the constitutional head who must consent to such appointments—the association invokes the highest level of oversight, underscoring the gravity of their concerns.
Central to their grievance is the procedural dimension: the HCBA asserts that the invocation of Article 224-A is
"
,"
which vests the recommendation power squarely with the Chief Justice of the High Court. They argue that the
Collegium's overreach disrupts the
in judicial administration, where High Courts enjoy autonomy in managing internal exigencies. This
, if unchallenged, could set a precedent for further centralization of appointment powers, potentially marginalizing state-level judicial leadership.
Scrutiny of Merit: Low Judgment Disposal Rates
Beyond procedure, the HCBA's letter launches a data-driven assault on the nominees' credentials, questioning their suitability for tackling
. They contend that the selected judges
"fail to inspire confidence in the ability of the recommended persons to clear
of cases,"
backed by publicly available disposal statistics.
Specifically, the representation notes:
"A search on the net shows a minuscule number of cases having been decided by at least four of five judges during their tenure of almost two years as high court judges."
Breaking it down, Justice Mohd. Aslam is credited with 46 judgments between
; Justice Renu Agarwal with 73 between
; Justice Jyotsana Sharma with 93 between
; and Justice Syed Aftab Hussain Rizvi with 151 between
. In a court where judges are expected to handle hundreds of cases annually, these figures—averaging fewer than 50 per year for some—paint a picture of limited productivity, the HCBA argues.
The association contrasts this with more recent retirees, who reportedly demonstrate
"better and more effective disposal on merits."
This merit-based critique resonates with ongoing discussions in legal circles about performance metrics for judicial elevations. While disposal rates are not the sole indicator of judicial quality—factors like case complexity and administrative duties play roles—the HCBA's invocation of empirical data amplifies calls for transparent evaluations in ad-hoc selections, mirroring broader demands for annual judicial report cards.
Legal Concerns Over Article 224-A Invocation
Legally, the HCBA's challenge hinges on a strict interpretation of Article 224-A, which states:
"Notwithstanding anything in this Chapter, the Chief Justice of a High Court for any State may at any time, with the previous consent of the President, request in writing the appointment of a person who has held the office of a Judge of that Court or of any other High Court to be an additional Judge of the High Court for such period... as may be necessary to enable the vacation of any office during which the appointment is to have effect."
The plain language emphasizes the High Court's Chief Justice's initiative, not a top-down directive from the
.
This raises profound constitutional questions: Does the Collegium's recommendation encroach on High Court autonomy, violating the under ? Legal scholars may draw parallels to the 's own rulings on collegium primacy, which were crafted to insulate appointments from executive interference but did not explicitly extend to ad-hoc mechanisms. If pursued, this could escalate to a in the , testing the boundaries between collegial consultation and hierarchical overreach. Moreover, it revives echoes of the NJAC judgment ( ), where the Court struck down executive involvement but affirmed the need for balanced, transparent processes.
Push for Regular Appointments Over Ad-Hoc Fixes
The HCBA's representation goes further, advocating a shift from ad-hoc palliatives to substantive reforms. They submit that
"instead of appointing retired judges by invoking Article 224-A... it would have been wholesome to make regular appointments to fill the vacancies."
This plea aligns with recommendations from bodies like the
, which in its 261st Report (
) urged expedited permanent recruitments to combat vacancies.
The letter poignantly adds:
"…appointing five judges from pool of retired judges to fill up any vacancies in the High Court at Allahabad merely deprives eligible persons of the legal fraternity from being appointed to a sensitive constitutional post while the post is filled up by a retired High Court judges whose innings in the system is already complete."
For practicing lawyers, many with decades of experience, such ad-hoc measures represent a lost opportunity for elevation, perpetuating a cycle where temporary appointees occupy slots that could invigorate the bench with fresh perspectives. The HCBA argues that prioritizing regulars from eligible advocates or district judges would not only address vacancies but also enhance diversity and dynamism in the judiciary.
This stance resonates amid national efforts, such as the 's initiatives for faster case management, but underscores that human resources remain the bottleneck. Vacancies in Allahabad alone—estimated at around 50 as of 2026—directly impede access to justice, particularly for underserved litigants in civil and criminal matters.
Broader Implications for the Judiciary
The fallout from this controversy extends beyond Allahabad, signaling potential ripple effects across India's judicial landscape. For legal practitioners, it amplifies frustrations with the collegium's perceived insularity, fueling demands for mechanisms like open advertisements for High Court vacancies or performance audits for all appointments. On the systemic level, reliance on ad-hoc judges risks normalizing short-termism, where retired jurists—often drawing pensions alongside stipends—may lack the incentive for sustained clearance compared to permanent judges invested in career progression.
Moreover, this episode could influence policy discourse. The Union Law Ministry, already under pressure from parliamentary committees, might accelerate consultations on judicial reforms, including digitization to reduce workload or incentives for quicker collegium deliberations. For the legal community, it serves as a reminder of the bar's role in holding institutions accountable, potentially inspiring similar actions in other High Courts facing vacancy woes, such as the Bombay or Madras benches.
Ethically, the debate touches on judicial integrity: Low disposal rates, if substantiated, question whether past elevations overlooked performance, eroding public confidence. Yet, defenders of the nominees might counter that statistics ignore qualitative contributions, like mentoring juniors or handling complex constitutional benches.
Conclusion: A Call for Transparent Reforms
As the President and CJI deliberate on the HCBA's representation, this saga illuminates the tensions inherent in India's judicial appointment framework—a system born of noble intent to safeguard independence but strained by practical realities. The Allahabad bar's intervention, grounded in procedural rigor and merit advocacy, compels a reckoning: Will ad-hoc measures under Article 224-A evolve into a collegium-led norm, or will it prompt a pivot toward robust, regular appointments? For legal professionals, the outcome will shape not just Allahabad's docket but the judiciary's resilience in delivering timely justice. In an era of digital courts and rising litigation, transparent reforms are imperative to bridge the gap between constitutional promise and ground realities, ensuring the third branch remains a pillar of democracy rather than a backlog beleaguered institution.
