Introduction

The Supreme Court of India's landmark judgment in Lok Prahari Through Its General Secretary S.N. Shukla Ias (Retd.) Petitioner(S) v. Union Of India And Others (2021 INSC 261) has inaugurated the activation of Article 224A of the Constitution of India. This provision, previously dormant, outlines the appointment of retired judges as ad hoc judges in High Courts to mitigate the burgeoning backlog of pending cases.

The case was brought forward by Lok Prahari, represented by its General Secretary, S.N. Shukla, seeking an urgent remedy to the systemic delays plaguing the High Courts. With over 5.7 million cases pending and a consistent vacancy rate of approximately 40%, the petitioner highlighted the pressing need for judicial reforms to ensure timely justice.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court, acknowledging the critical state of judicial backlogs, directed the activation of Article 224A to appoint ad hoc judges. The Court recognized the separation of powers within the Constitution and emphasized the dynamic nature of legal provisions to adapt to emerging challenges.

The Court delved into the historical context of Article 224A, tracing its removal and subsequent reintroduction. It scrutinized legislative attempts, including the failed National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC), and underscored the importance of utilizing ad hoc judges as a pragmatic solution to the crisis.

Further, the Court examined judicial precedents that shaped the interpretation of Article 224A, elucidating the roles, limitations, and entitlements of ad hoc judges. Concluding the judgment, the Court laid down comprehensive guidelines to operationalize the appointment of ad hoc judges effectively, ensuring transparency and efficacy in the process.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively referenced several pivotal cases that informed its stance on Article 224A:

• Krishan Gopal v. Shri Prakash Chandra (1974): Clarified that ad hoc judges possess jurisdiction, powers, and privileges akin to regular High Court judges while not being deemed permanent judges. This precedent underscored the functional authority of ad hoc judges in specific contexts.
• Justice P Venugopal v. Union of India (2003): Established that ad hoc judges are not part of the High Court for pension computations, emphasizing their temporary and separate status.
• Union of India v. Sankalchand Himatlal Sheth (1977): Highlighted the necessity of consent from retired judges before their appointment as ad hoc judges, ensuring voluntary participation.
• Indian Society Of Lawyers v. President Of India (2011): Elaborated on the procedural aspects of appointing ad hoc judges, distinguishing their appointment process from regular judges.
• Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (NJAC case) (2016): Affirmed the collegium system for judicial appointments, indirectly impacting the appointment of ad hoc judges.

These precedents collectively provided a framework for understanding the scope, limitations, and procedural nuances associated with the appointment of ad hoc judges under Article 224A.

Legal Reasoning

The Court's legal reasoning hinged on the urgent need to alleviate the massive backlog of cases in the High Courts. Recognizing that regular appointments were insufficiently addressing the problem due to persistent vacancies, the Court invoked Article 224A as a constitutional tool.

The reasoning emphasized the following principles:

• Dynamic Interpretation of the Constitution: The Court underscored that constitutional provisions must evolve to address contemporary challenges, even if the original intent differed.
• Separation of Powers: Maintaining the distinct roles of the Judiciary, Executive, and Legislature was paramount. The activation of Article 224A was portrayed as a judicial initiative not encroaching upon legislative or executive domains.
• Pragmatism in Judicial Appointments: Given the entrenched vacancy rates and case pendency, the Court advocated for a pragmatic approach by utilizing experienced retired judges to expedite case disposals.
• Transparency and Accountability: The guidelines laid out sought to ensure that the appointment process for ad hoc judges was transparent, merit-based, and insulated from patronage.

The Court meticulously balanced the need for immediate judicial intervention with constitutional safeguards, ensuring that the activation of Article 224A adhered to legal proprieties and administrative feasibility.

Impact

The judgment is poised to have profound implications on the judicial landscape:

• Reduction of Case Backlogs: By appointing ad hoc judges, the High Courts can process cases more swiftly, particularly those that have languished for over five years.
• Enhanced Judicial Efficiency: Experienced retired judges can bring in-depth knowledge and expertise, contributing to faster and more informed decision-making.
• Precedent for Addressing Systemic Issues: This judgment sets a precedent for the judiciary to utilize constitutional provisions innovatively to tackle systemic inefficiencies.
• Balancing Regular and Ad Hoc Appointments: The guidelines ensure that the use of ad hoc judges complements rather than substitutes the regular appointment process, maintaining the integrity of the judicial system.
• Future Legislative and Judicial Reforms: The active engagement with Article 224A may inspire further reforms aimed at enhancing judicial administration and accountability.

Overall, the judgment serves as a pivotal step towards modernizing judicial processes and ensuring timely dispensation of justice in India.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Article 224A of the Constitution of India

Definition: Article 224A allows the Chief Justice of a High Court to request retired judges to serve as ad hoc judges to address temporary increases in business or arrears of work within the court.

Key Features:

• Voluntary Service: Retired judges must consent to serve; they cannot be compelled.
• Limited Tenure: The appointment is temporary, not exceeding two years unless specified otherwise.
• No Permanent Status: Ad hoc judges have the jurisdiction and powers of High Court judges during their tenure but are not considered permanent judges.
• Allowances: They receive allowances as determined by the President but do not accrue additional pension benefits.

Continuing Mandamus

Definition: Continuing mandamus is an innovative judicial remedy whereby the Court issues ongoing directives to ensure the execution of its judgments, bridging gaps between judgment delivery and practical implementation.

Relevance in This Judgment: The Supreme Court employed the principle of continuing mandamus to provide ongoing oversight and guidelines for the effective activation and utilization of Article 224A.

Collegium System

Definition: The collegium system is a method by which judges, primarily from the Supreme Court, collectively recommend appointments and elevations of judges in the higher judiciary.

Implications: While the collegium system governs regular judicial appointments, the appointment of ad hoc judges under Article 224A follows a separate, albeit related, procedural pathway, emphasizing collaboration between the Judiciary and the Executive.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's decision to activate Article 224A marks a significant stride towards addressing the entrenched issues of judicial backlog and vacancies in High Courts across India. By leveraging the expertise of retired judges, the judiciary can enhance its capacity to deliver timely justice, thereby restoring public faith in the legal system.

The meticulously crafted guidelines ensure that this activation is executed with transparency, accountability, and efficiency, safeguarding against potential misuse and maintaining the sanctity of judicial appointments. Furthermore, the decision reinforces the dynamic interpretation of the Constitution, showcasing the judiciary's readiness to adapt to evolving challenges.

As the implementation unfolds, continuous oversight and periodic reviews will be essential to fine-tune the process, ensuring that the appointment of ad hoc judges remains a viable and effective solution to judicial inefficiencies. Ultimately, this judgment embodies a proactive approach to judicial reform, setting a commendable example for other democracies grappling with similar systemic issues.