Supreme Court Mulls Guidelines For Appointment Of Ad-Hoc Judges Under Article 224A; Seeks Views Of High Courts

The Supreme Court on Thursday said that it was intending to lay down guidelines for the appointment of ad-hoc judges in the High Courts under Article 224A of the Constitution to tackle the problem of mounting case arrears.While considering a PIL filed by an NGO named Lok Prahari seeking the use of Article 224A, a bench comprising Chief Justice of India SA Bobde, Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Surya Kant required the senior advocates representing different High Courts to submit suggestions regarding the appointment process, after having a conference with each other.The major aspects discussed by the bench during a hearing session which lasted for nearly two hours were :What should be the trigger point which activates the process of appointment of judges under Article 224A? What should be the level of pendency at which this process should be initiated?Whether the pendency must be determined branch wise or generally?What could be the uniform criteria to determine the number of ad-hoc judges at High Courts and their tenure?Whether the process of selection judges under Article 224A should undergo the same process of appointment for regular judges, involving the collegiums at High Courts and Supreme Court, the State Executive and the Union Law Ministry?What should be the allowances for such judges under Article 224A?"We want to lay down circumstances in which appointments process for ad-hoc judges should be activated", CJI SA Bobde said during the hearing. "If the pendency in a certain jurisdiction or branch, be it criminal, civil or tax, goes up beyond a particular percentage, this can be activated. That has to be scientifically established. If the pendency is beyond a particular percentage, that will determine the tenure. The Chief Justice will based on pendency see how many ad-hoc judges are to be appointed", the CJI said."If the CJ thinks that to bring down the pendency close to the rate of filing, and for doing that he needs to appoint 2 ad-hoc judges for two years, he may do so. The tenure and number of ad-hoc judges will be determined by the requirement to bring down the pendency to the filing rate", CJI Bobde explained.Justice SK Kaul said that ad-hoc judges will only hear the old pending cases and not the fresh matters."Ad-hoc judges will be working to clear the arrears. Current matters will go to regular judges. Ad-hoc judges will hear old cases", Justice Kaul said.The CJI told the various senior advocates appearing in the matter on behalf of High Courts that their assistance will be needed to lay down the principles in this regard.The CJI said :"There must be a principle for activating the process for appointing ad-hoc judges. That principle is linked to pendency. We want your assistance to determine what should be the level of pendency at which this process must be activated. If you assit us, we can provide a bench mark, which can alert the Chief Justices. What is the point at which pendency should have reached and whether the pendency should be branch wise or generally. Once we have the benchmark, the process should be triggered off, and the CJ will keep a panel of former judges, and from that panel he'll make appointments.Second is, how many appointments should be made? We will have to say, for this much pendency, one judge can be appointed. Beyond that, one more. This will have to determined scientifically to avoid arbitrariness.Next is what should be the tenure, and tenure will be depending on rate of disposal. Criminal appeals, second appeals involving huge evidence etc, take longer time. Rate of disposal is determined by that. Based on the rate of disposal in that branch, the CJI may increase the tenure, or may give extension".The bench asked Senior Advocate Arvind P Datar, who was representing the Orissa High Court, to take the initiative to convene a virtual meeting with all other senior lawyers in the matter and to submit joint suggestions by next Wednesday. The bench will consider the matter on next Thursday, April 15.Vacancy should be the benchmark instead of pendency, Senior Adv Basant suggestsSenior Advocate R Basant, appearing for the Kerala High Court, suggested that the bench mark for use of Article 224A should be the level of vacancies in the High Courts than the pendency."The remedy cannot be worse than the malady. All these calculations about pendency are cumbersome. Will it not be better if the process is triggered if the number of judges go below a percentage. Otherwise we'll have to calculate the arrears, which keep on fluctuating. If the persons in office fall short of 5 or 10 percentage, activate the process under Article 224A. Will it not be better?", Basant suggested.Taking a different view, the CJI said that there will be the issue of pendency even if there are no vacancies in a High Court."If there is a High Court with no vacancy but a lot of pendency, should appointments not he made?!There are High Courts where there is one Vacancy but cases are pending", the CJI...

Supreme Court Mulls Guidelines For Appointment Of Ad-Hoc Judges Under Article 224A; Seeks Views Of High Courts

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags