Is appointing ad-hoc judges a viable means to reduce backlog? News: Recently, the Supreme Court of India allowed High Courts to appoint ad-hoc judges, up to 10% of their sanctioned strength, to address the massive case backlog, especially in criminal appeals. This move aims to speed up the judicial process and ensure timely justice. Arguments in Favor of Appointing Ad-Hoc Judges in High Courts Reducing Judicial BacklogIndia’s High Courts face an overwhelming backlog of cases, leading to delayed justice and eroded public trust. Appointing ad-hoc judges can accelerate case disposal, ensuring timely justice.Example: Over 59 lakh cases were pending in High Courts as of 2023 (National Judicial Data Grid).Utilizing Experienced Judges Retired judges bring years of expertise, legal wisdom, and familiarity with judicial processes, enabling them to efficiently handle complex disputes without requiring extensive training. Their inclusion ensures quality and consistency in judgments.Example: Justice R.F. Nariman suggested that using retired judges could help clear backlogs without compromising judgment quality (Bar and Bench, 2022).Faster Disposal of Criminal CasesMany criminal cases remain unresolved for years, leading to prolonged detention of undertrials and delays in justice for victims. Ad-hoc judges can be appointed to fast-track such cases, ensuring fair trials and timely verdicts.Example: The Allahabad High Court used retired judges to expedite criminal appeals, reducing the burden on sitting judges (Live Law, 2021).No Long-Term Financial BurdenUnlike permanent judges, who require lifetime salaries, pensions, and benefits, ad-hoc judges work on short-term assignments, making them a cost-effective solution for urgent judicial workload.Example: The Supreme Court in Lok Prahari v. Union of India recommended ad-hoc appointments as an economical measure to reduce case backlog (The Hindu, 2021).Independence from Political InterferenceSince ad-hoc judges do not seek promotions or long-term appointments, they are less likely to be influenced by political pressures, ensuring judgments are based purely on legal merit.Example: Justice M.B. Lokur (Retd.) emphasized that ad-hoc judges can serve without political pressure, ensuring unbiased adjudication (Indian Express, 2021).Successful International ModelsMany countries, including the UK, Canada, and the US, appoint temporary judges to manage excess caseloads effectively, demonstrating that such a system can work efficiently while maintaining judicial independence.Example: The UK’s "Deputy High Court Judges" system has proven effective in clearing pending cases efficiently while upholding judicial credibility and independence. Arguments Against Appointing Ad-Hoc Judges in High Courts Threat to Judicial IndependenceFrequent temporary appointments could give the executive excessive influence over the judiciary, undermining judicial independence and allowing political interference in critical legal matters.Example: The Bar Council of India (2022) raised concerns that ad-hoc appointments could be misused to favor judges aligned with the ruling government.Compromising Merit-Based AppointmentsThe focus on ad-hoc judges may divert attention from recruiting young, competent judges, delaying long-term judicial reforms. This hampers the infusion of fresh talent into the system.Example: As of 2023, over 300 High Court judge positions remained vacant, yet ad-hoc appointments were being prioritized instead of permanent recruitment (Times of India, 2023).Lack of Accountability and Performance ReviewUnlike permanent judges, ad-hoc judges work on short-term contracts without rigorous performance assessments, leading to potential inefficiency and inconsistent judicial quality.Example: Some retired judges appointed in ad-hoc roles recorded lower case disposal rates, highlighting efficiency concerns (Live Law, 2022).Temporary Fix for a Structural ProblemAd-hoc judges provide short-term relief but fail to address deeper issues such as procedural inefficiencies, inadequate infrastructure, and outdated litigation practices that cause case backlogs.Example: The Law Commission of India (245th Report) emphasized the need for judicial infrastructure reforms rather than reliance on temporary judges.Risk of Prioritizing Speed Over QualityAd-hoc judges may focus on quick case disposal rather than conducting thorough legal reviews, leading to poorly reasoned judgments and increased risk of appeals.Example: Former CJI Ranjan Gogoi warned that excessive focus on speed could result in judgments lacking legal depth (Indian Express, 2021).Reduced Public Confidence in JudiciaryOver-reliance on temporary judges could make the judiciary appear unstable, reducing public trust in courts’ ability to provide consistent, long-term justice. A stable, well-staffed judiciary is crucial for credibility.Example: A PRS Legislative Research (2022) survey found that 68% of respondents believed a fully staffed judiciary with permanent judges was preferable to ad-hoc solutions for ensuring long-term judicial stability. Conclusion: Appointing ad-hoc judges is a practical solution to India’s judicial backlog, ensuring faster justice and cost-effective case disposal. While concerns about judicial independence and long-term reforms exist, their temporary role can complement permanent appointments. A balanced approach, integrating ad-hoc judges with systemic judicial improvements, is key to efficient justice delivery.[wpdiscuz_comments]
