Read Time: 10 minutes

Supreme Court Bench of Chief Justice SA Bobde, Justice SK Kaul and Justice Surya Kant reserved the orders on Appointment of Ad Hoc Judges.

Submissions were made by the Learned Attorney General, Mr. KK Venugopal.

Senior Advocate(s) Mr. Arvind P Datar, Mr. Vikas Singh and Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha also made their arguments today on varied aspects of tenure, allowances and method of appointment.

The interveners, Supreme Court Women Lawyers Association, in the connected matter raised the issue of inadequate women representation in higher judiciary;

CJI: We have the interests of women in our mind. We are implementing it in the best way possible. Only thing we need is capable candidates.

It was also observed that many a times, eminent women lawyers/Judges refrain from taking position as a Judge/elevation citing domestic work and responsibilities.

With respect to the names pending with the Ministry,

CJI: This matter can be settled if the Government can tell us the timelines that will be adhered to, at each stage. The timelines you will, voluntary adhere to. (To the Learned Attorney)

With respect to the argument of Senior Advocate Mr. Vikas Singh on considering names from the Bar for elevation as a Judge;

CJI: I have been a part of the Collegium and I can say that every collegium considers lawyers from Supreme Court and forwards it.

The matter in today’s hearing confined on the Affidavit filed by the Union wherein it has given recommendations on Appointment of Ad Hoc Judges.

CJI: The Affidavit of the union whittles the power of the CJ of the HC. Discretion should remain with the CJ of the HC for making such appointment. This is something the Constitution has left with the CJ to decide. Undoubtedly he will have a discussion with the judge he is proposing to sit, if that judge thinks that there is something derogatory or more profitable than being an ad Hoc judge, he will say a no. This is an offer to serve the country, the judiciary…We can always leave the discretion with the CJ of the HC after laying down some guidelines.

Learned Attorney referred the CAD, more precisely concerns raised by Dr. Bakshi and Dr. Ambedkar.

Acknowledging the necessity of appointing Ad Hoc Judges, CJI made a personal observation;

CJI: I tell you what happened during my tenure, because of many Constitution Bench matters pending, regular matters suffered; they were not able to be taken up. Now if you have an Ad Hoc judge specialized in a particular field, the matters could be referred there.

On the point of salary and allowances;

CJI: There are two aspects to judges being paid from CFI; one is with the independence of judiciary; so the govt. cannot withhold the salary, the second is the security; no one can interfere with the payments from the CFI.

CJI: There is a surfeit of cars here, there is a surfeit of facilities, the only problem is houses.

On the independence of Ad Hoc Judges and accountability to the appointing CJ;

CJI: I, for one, am not in favour of taking away the independence of an Ad Hoc Judge. We have seen the kind of complaints that can be shot, some of them are shockingly false and you can easily knock off a judge by this, you cannot make him vulnerable like this.

Senior Advocate Ajit Kumar Sinha submitted instead of drawing the contours, leave it to the CJ of the HC under Article 224A. A suggestion can be made by the CJI for 2 years tenure, by way of interim order but as per the mandate CJ of the HC should be left to decide; “Activate this provision in the larger interest of the society”, said the learned Senior Counsel.

Senior Advocate Mr. Datar referred N. Kannadasan v. Ajoy Khose, (2009) 7 SCC 1 to submit the eligibility of an Ad Hoc Judge.

Senior Advocate Mr. R. Basant made a brief submission that a retired Judge, asked to only ‘sit and act’ cannot be considered as a Judge for all practical purposes.

The Bench clarified that Age and fitness factor will also be accounted in, while issuing guidelines in the present matter.

Moreover, the point raised by Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Singh, that a CJ of a HC cannot make recommendation for an Ad Hoc Judge, pending vacancy of regular judges was re-appreciated by the bench in today’s hearing.

Also Read: Supreme Court Identifies Crucial Aspects Related To Appointment Of Judges, Directs Convening Of Meeting With Requisite Stakeholders

Also Read: "Higher Disposal Rate Of Experienced Judges": Supreme Court On Appointment Of Ad Hoc Judges For Pendency

Case Title: Lok Prahari v. Union Of India and Ors| WP(C) 1236 of 2019.