SC Collegium Breaks New Ground: Appoints 5 Retired Judges as Ad Hoc for Allahabad High Court Under Article 224A

In a landmark move to combat the mounting backlog of cases plaguing India's High Courts, the Supreme Court Collegium on February 3, 2026, approved the appointment of five retired judges as ad hoc judges of the Allahabad High Court for a two-year term. This decision invokes the rarely used Article 224A of the Constitution, marking a significant activation of a "dormant" provision aimed at leveraging judicial expertise to address the "docket explosion." The appointees—Justices Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan, Mohd. Aslam, Syed Aftab Husain Rizvi, Renu Agarwal, and Jyotsna Sharma—were recommended specifically to expedite the disposal of long-pending criminal cases, including appeals and bail matters. Led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, alongside Justices Vikram Nath and J.K. Maheshwari, the Collegium's resolution underscores a proactive judicial response to institutional challenges, building on prior Supreme Court guidelines from 2021 and subsequent relaxations in rules.

This development not only bolsters the Allahabad High Court's judicial strength to 115 judges against a sanctioned strength of 160 but also signals a potential shift in how High Courts manage pendency. For legal professionals, it highlights the evolving interpretation of constitutional mechanisms for judicial administration, offering a model for other overburdened courts.

Historical Context and the Pendency Crisis

The Allahabad High Court, one of India's busiest judicial forums, has long grappled with a staggering caseload. With over 1.2 million cases pending as of recent reports, criminal matters—particularly appeals, bail applications, and personal liberty issues—form a significant portion of the backlog. This situation is not unique to Allahabad but reflects a nationwide crisis, where High Courts collectively handle millions of cases, leading to delays that undermine public trust in the justice system.

Article 224A of the Constitution, inserted by the 15th Amendment in 1963, empowers the Chief Justice of a High Court, with the President's prior consent, to request retired High Court judges to "sit and act as a Judge" temporarily. Unlike regular appointments under Article 217 or additional judges under Article 224, ad hoc judges under Article 224A are not considered permanent members for purposes like seniority or transfer. They receive allowances determined by the President and exercise full judicial powers during their tenure. However, this provision lay largely unused for decades, invoked only thrice before: Justice Suraj Bhan in the Madhya Pradesh High Court (1972), Justice P. Venugopal in the Madras High Court (1982), and Justice O.P. Srivastava in the Allahabad High Court (2007).

The turning point came in 2021 with the Supreme Court's judgment in Lok Prahari through its General Secretary V.N. Shukla (IAS Retd.) v. Union of India . In this public interest litigation, a Bench led by then-Chief Justice N.V. Ramana "activated" Article 224A, framing comprehensive guidelines to operationalize it. The Court emphasized that ad hoc appointments could only follow efforts to fill regular vacancies and required High Court Chief Justices to assess pendency thresholds—initially pegged at over 20% vacancies or three-year average pendency exceeding sanctioned strength by 15%. The judgment described Article 224A as a "dormant power" essential for clearing arrears, distinguishing it from Article 224 by noting its focus on retired judges' expertise without the formalities of new recruitments.

Subsequent judicial interventions further refined this framework. In January 2025, a three-judge Bench headed by then-CJI Sanjiv Khanna, including Justices B.R. Gavai and Surya Kant, relaxed the vacancy threshold, allowing invocations even if shortages fell below 20%. This easing was motivated by the urgent need to address rising pendency in criminal jurisdictions, where delays often implicate fundamental rights under Article 21. Then, in December 2025 (as per sources), a Bench comprising CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi granted High Court Chief Justices enhanced flexibility in bench compositions. The Court clarified that ad hoc judges could sit singly or in division benches—either with another ad hoc judge, a sitting judge, or as presiding members—removing prior restrictions and promoting efficiency.

These developments set the stage for the Collegium's 2026 resolution, initiated by CJI Surya Kant after reviewing media reports on non-compliance with earlier directives. A letter from the Supreme Court prompted High Court Chief Justices to nominate candidates, with Allahabad's proposal being the first approved. Sources indicate that two other High Courts' recommendations are pending, suggesting this could herald wider adoption.

The Appointment Process and Selection Criteria

The process for ad hoc appointments under Article 224A is notably streamlined compared to regular judicial elevations. Unlike fresh appointments, which involve rigorous background checks, intelligence inputs, and interviews, ad hoc selections focus on the candidates' past judicial records. The High Court Collegium assesses judgments delivered by the retired judges, preparing a report forwarded through the central government, whose role is limited to transmitting recommendations without mandatory scrutiny unless glaring issues arise.

In this instance, the Allahabad High Court Collegium, led by its Chief Justice, nominated recently retired judges to ensure familiarity with post-COVID digital systems and sustained vigor. All five appointees had retired within the last year, aligning with the Collegium's preference for recency. The Supreme Court Collegium, skipping interviews as "improper" for experienced jurists, approved the list on February 3, 2026. The official resolution states: "The Supreme Court Collegium in its meeting held on 3rd February, 2026 has approved the proposal for appointment of the following retired Judges as ad hoc Judges of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in terms of Article 224-A of the Constitution of India, for a period of two years."

This expedited mechanism underscores the constitutional intent: to deploy seasoned hands quickly against backlog without bureaucratic hurdles. A source familiar with the process noted, "The file is routed to the collegium through the central government, but in ad-hoc appointments, the latter’s role is limited only to forwarding the recommendations with its opinion... This expedites the appointment process."

Legal Implications and Judicial Strategy

From a legal standpoint, this invocation reinforces the Supreme Court's commitment to self-governance in judicial administration, as enshrined in the Collegium system under Articles 124(2) and 217(1). By drawing on Lok Prahari and its progeny, the decision operationalizes Article 224A as a constitutional safeguard against systemic inertia, prioritizing efficiency without compromising independence.

Key principles applied include the threshold-based approach to pendency (now flexible post-2025), the prerequisite of filling regular vacancies, and the functional equivalence of ad hoc judges to sitting ones. The December 2025 clarification on bench compositions is particularly salient, enabling hybrid benches that optimize workload distribution. For instance, two ad hoc judges could handle high-volume criminal divisions, freeing sitting judges for constitutional benches.

Precedents like Lok Prahari are pivotal, as they transformed Article 224A from obscurity to utility, likening it to ad hoc tribunals in international law for crisis management. The rarity of prior uses highlights its "extraordinary" nature, reserved for acute crises like Allahabad's, where criminal pendency exceeds 500,000 cases, many involving liberty interests.

Critically, ad hoc judges' non-inclusion in seniority ladders prevents disruption to career progressions, maintaining merit-based elevations. Yet, this raises nuanced questions: Does frequent invocation risk overburdening retirees? Or dilute focus on permanent recruitment? The Collegium's targeted focus on criminal cases—emphasizing "appeals and bail matters or cases of personal liberty"—aligns with Article 21's speedy trial mandate, as reiterated in Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979), though not directly cited here.

Key Observations

The Supreme Court's evolving jurisprudence on Article 224A offers profound insights into judicial pragmatism. From the 2021 Lok Prahari judgment: "Article 224A is a special provision as it enables the Chief Justice of a High Court to request any person who has held the office of Judge of that Court or of any other High Court to sit and act as a Judge of the High Court... to meet the heavy backlog of cases."

On the recent relaxations, the January 2025 Bench observed: "The condition that vacancies should be more than 20%... is relaxed to tackle rising pendency, especially in criminal matters."

The December 2025 ruling emphasized flexibility: "A High Court Chief Justice can set up benches of two ad hoc judges, or a bench with one sitting judge and one ad hoc judge, and also decide who will preside."

A Collegium source highlighted the intent: "These ad-hoc judges have been chosen specifically to tackle criminal cases that are pending in the Allahabad HC for years now. Their services would be used to dispose of these appeals and bail matters or cases of personal liberty."

Finally, the official resolution encapsulates the milestone: "The approval is given for appointment for a period of two years," signaling sustained intervention.

Broader Impacts and Future Prospects

The Collegium's decision promises tangible relief for the Allahabad High Court, potentially accelerating case disposal by 10-15% in targeted areas, based on analogous implementations. With ad hoc judges focusing on criminal dockets, outcomes could include reduced pre-trial detentions and swifter resolutions, enhancing access to justice.

For the legal fraternity, this sets a precedent for collaborative federalism between the judiciary and executive—the President's consent is formal, but the Collegium drives nominations. It may encourage other High Courts, like those in Uttar Pradesh or Delhi, to propose similar appointments, especially as national pendency hovers at 4.4 crore cases.

However, challenges persist: Ad hoc reliance cannot substitute structural reforms, such as increasing sanctioned strengths or leveraging technology for virtual hearings. Nonetheless, this "historic first" post- Lok Prahari validates Article 224A as a viable tool, potentially inspiring legislative tweaks for even broader application.

In essence, the appointment underscores the judiciary's resilience, turning constitutional dormancy into dynamic reform. As India navigates its judicial overload, such measures affirm the Constitution's adaptability, ensuring justice delayed is not justice denied.