Introduction
In a significant clarification aimed at addressing the mounting pendency of cases in High Courts across India, the Supreme Court has ruled that ad hoc judges appointed under Article 224A of the Constitution may sit as single judges or as part of division benches alongside sitting High Court judges. The Court further held that the Chief Justice of the concerned High Court shall have complete discretion in deciding the constitution of such benches and determining which judge will preside.
This clarification modifies earlier directions issued by the Supreme Court in April 2021 concerning the appointment and functioning of ad hoc judges and reflects a pragmatic shift in judicial administration to improve efficiency without compromising institutional hierarchy.
Background: Article 224A and the 2021 Supreme Court Directions
Article 224A of the Constitution empowers the Chief Justice of a High Court, with the consent of the President of India, to appoint retired judges of High Courts as ad hoc judges for a temporary period. The provision was invoked by the Supreme Court in its landmark April 20, 2021 judgment, which laid down an institutional framework for appointing ad hoc judges to tackle chronic case backlogs.
The 2021 judgment imposed certain conditions, including:
- Ad hoc judges could be appointed only if vacancies exceeded 20% of the sanctioned strength.
- Ad hoc judges were to sit only in division benches comprising other ad hoc judges, primarily to hear old and pending cases.
The latter condition was intended to avoid institutional awkwardness, particularly situations where a retired judge would have to sit as a junior to a sitting judge.
January 2025 Relaxation and the Need for Further Clarification
In January 2025, the Supreme Court relaxed the requirement that vacancies must exceed 20% before ad hoc judges could be appointed. However, ambiguity persisted regarding whether ad hoc judges could sit with sitting judges or function as single judges, especially in High Courts with massive backlogs such as Allahabad.
Senior Advocate K. Parameshwar, appearing as amicus curiae, highlighted that paragraph 61 of the 2021 judgment restricted ad hoc judges to exclusive division benches. This restriction, he argued, limited the effectiveness of ad hoc appointments, particularly where single-judge jurisdiction accounts for a substantial portion of pending appeals.
Supreme Court’s Clarification: Bench Composition and Discretion of the Chief Justice
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice Vipul Pancholi clarified the position on December 18, 2025.
The Court held that:
- Ad hoc judges may constitute single-judge benches.
- Ad hoc judges may sit on division benches along with sitting High Court judges.
- If two ad hoc judges are appointed in a High Court, the Chief Justice may constitute a division bench consisting solely of ad hoc judges.
- The Chief Justice of the High Court has full discretion to decide who will preside over a division bench comprising an ad hoc judge and a sitting judge.
This clarification effectively removes all structural constraints on bench composition involving ad hoc judges.
Judicial Concerns on Bench Hierarchy and Institutional Sensitivities
During the hearing, the Chief Justice of India acknowledged the delicate institutional dynamics involved in bench composition. He observed that:
- An ad hoc judge might feel uncomfortable sitting as a junior to a sitting judge.
- Conversely, a sitting judge might object to sitting as a junior to a retired judge.
Recognising these competing concerns, the Court consciously chose not to impose a rigid rule and instead entrusted the matter to the administrative wisdom of the Chief Justice of each High Court.
Attorney General for India R. Venkataramani supported this approach, suggesting that internal consultations among judges could help arrive at a mutually acceptable arrangement, thereby preserving institutional harmony.
Operative Directions: Modification of the 2021 Judgment
Dictating its operative order, the Supreme Court stated:
“There shall be no impediment in constituting the single judge benches of ad hoc judges… The main judgment dated April 20, 2021 shall also be deemed to have been suitably modified.”
This declaration formally integrates the clarification into the original 2021 judgment, ensuring consistency in future implementation.
Significance of the Ruling
1. Enhanced Judicial Capacity
Allowing ad hoc judges to sit as single judges significantly increases their utility, especially in High Courts where single-judge matters dominate the docket.
2. Flexibility in Court Administration
By vesting discretion in the High Court Chief Justices, the Supreme Court has reinforced the principle of judicial federalism and administrative autonomy.
3. Faster Disposal of Long-Pending Cases
The ruling directly advances the objective behind ad hoc appointments—reducing pendency, particularly of old appeals and criminal matters.
4. Balanced Institutional Approach
Instead of mandating a one-size-fits-all model, the Court has recognised the importance of context-specific solutions sensitive to interpersonal and institutional dynamics.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s clarification marks a practical and forward-looking interpretation of Article 224A, aligning constitutional text with contemporary judicial realities. By enabling ad hoc judges to function with greater flexibility and entrusting High Court Chief Justices with decisive authority, the Court has strengthened the institutional framework for tackling judicial backlog.
As High Courts continue to grapple with severe pendency, this ruling may prove instrumental in ensuring timely justice without undermining judicial hierarchy or independence. It reflects a conscious shift from rigid procedural constraints toward functional efficiency rooted in trust and discretion.
Add Read
