Read Time: 07 minutes

A Full Judge Bench of Chief Justice SA Bobde, Justice SK Kaul and Justice Surya Kant hears a matter seeking appointment of Additional/Ad Hoc Judges.

The Bench adjourned the matter for 8^th April, 2021, seeking written submissions from all respondents and the High Courts on how the guidelines of such Ad Hoc Appointments should be.

The matter was filed by an NGO Lok Prahari, represented by its General Secretary Mr. S.N. Shukla.

Submissions were made by Senior Advocate(s) Mr. R Basant, Mr. Vikas Singh and Mr. Atmaram Nadkarni.

Advocate Preetika Dwivedi and Advocate Vinay Arora appeared for Allahabad High Court and the State of Uttarakhand respectively.

Chief Justice made notable remarks with respect to the pendency across various courts, under various jurisdictions, stating, “It is a fact that judges who have been judges for 15-20 years can dispose of faster and there is a division of such judges who can control the pendency. Once that is controlled, the tenure can terminate.”

Emphasis was made to avoid the process of Collegium in such appointments, so to cut out the delay, as the language of Article 224A says, “Notwithstanding anything in this Chapter, [the National Judicial Appointments Commission on a reference made to it by the Chief Justice of a High Court for any State, may with the previous consent of the President], request any person who has held the office of a Judge of that Court or of any other High Court to sit and act as a Judge of the High Court for that State, and every such person so requested shall, while so sitting and acting, be entitled to such allowances as the President may by order determine and have all the jurisdiction, powers and privileges of, but shall not otherwise be deemed to be, a Judge of that High Court:

Provided that nothing in this article shall be deemed to require any such person as aforesaid to sit and act as a Judge of that High Court unless he consents to do so.”

It was submitted that the provision expressly mentions requisites and nature of such appointment, which does not mandate following of Collegium as such; “It is only the Chief Justice who is requesting a person to sit and act. The entire paraphernalia of collegium need not apply”, said Senior Counsel R. Basant.

CJI observed that several times the Office of President does not consider suitable in making a say in such matters and it is eventually referred to the Supreme Court; “Our point is, in a given case, the President may even refer the matter to the SC, that the Chief Justice of a HC has shown interest in appointing such person. It anyway comes to us, because the office of president does not find suitability in doing so.” 

ASG Suri appearing for the Centre submitted that the pending vacancy should be filled up first, following Ad Hoc appointment. 

CJI responded, “This is not in contradiction or alternative to the pending vacancy.”

It was also noted that accommodation of additional Judges is an issue which needs consideration.

Case Title: Lok Prahari Through Its General Secretary S.N.Shukla I.A.S. (Retd) V. Union Of India And Ors| WP(C) 1236 of 2019.