SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
FULL BENCH
LOK PRAHARI THROUGH ITS GENERAL SECRETARY S.N.SHUKLA I.A.S. (RETD)
Vs.
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
( Before : Sanjiv Khanna, CJI, B.R. Gavai and Surya Kant, JJ. )
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1236 of 2019 with W.P.(C) No. 689 of 2021
Decided on : 30-01-2025
The Supreme Court allows High Courts to appoint ad-hoc Judges under Article 224A, exceeding the 20% vacancy limit, to address the backlog of pending cases, with a cap of 10% of the sanctioned strength
A. High pendency of cases — Supreme Court allows High Courts to appoint ad-hoc Judges under Article 224A of the Constitution, even if the vacancy exceeds 20% of the sanctioned strength, and sets a limit of 10% of the sanctioned strength for such appointments — The Court adopts a continuing mandamus to monitor the situation and ensure the backlog is addressed.
B. Backlog of Cases and Dynamic Constitution — The Court acknowledges the unprecedented backlog of cases pending before the High Courts in India, with over 62 lakh cases pending as of 25.01.2025 — The Court emphasizes that the Constitution must be dynamic to address existing problems, such as the high pendency of cases.
C. Continuing Mandamus — The Court decides that it would not be appropriate to close the proceedings but instead adopts the concept of a continuing mandamus to address the issue — This means the Court will continue to monitor and issue directions as necessary to resolve the backlog.
D. Appointment of Ad-Hoc Judges under Article 224A — The Court modifies its earlier judgment and order dated 20.04.2021, which had stipulated that ad-hoc Judges should not be appointed unless 80% of the sanctioned strength of Judges is already either recommended or working — The Court now keeps this condition in abeyance, allowing High Courts to appoint ad-hoc Judges even if the vacancy exceeds 20% of the sanctioned strength.
E. Number of Ad-Hoc Judges — Each High Court is permitted to appoint between 2 to 5 ad-hoc Judges, but the number should not exceed 10% of the sanctioned strength of the High Court — These ad-hoc Judges will sit in a Bench presided over by a sitting Judge of the High Court and will primarily decide pending criminal appeals.
F. Memorandum of Procedure — The existing Memorandum of Procedure will be applied for the appointment of ad-hoc Judges.
G. Liberty to Move Applications — The parties are given the liberty to move appropriate applications if necessary, and the Bench will reassemble for further directions if required.
ORDER
1. In the judgment and order dated 20.04.2021, this Court refers to the unprecedented situation arising from the backlog of cases pending before the High Courts, and that any Constitution has to be dynamic as to sub-serve and endeavour to serve an existing problem. Secondly, the judgment and order dated 20.04.2021 states that it would not be appropriate to close the proceedings, but a concept of continuing mandamus would be appropriate to work out the recourse to Article 224A of the Constitution of India.
2. As per the National Judicial Data Grid, recent data indicates that there has been an increase in pendency levels in almost all the High Courts. Around 62,00,000 (Sixty Two Lakhs) cases are pending before the High Courts in India as on 25.01.2025, of which more than 18,20,000 (Eighteen Lakhs Twenty Thousands) cases are criminal cases and more than 44,00,000 (Forty Lakhs) cases are civil cases.
3. Having regard to the aforesaid position, we are inclined to keep the observations/conditions stipulated in paragraphs 43, 50, 54 and 55 of the judgment and order dated 20.04.2021 that recourse to the appointment of ad-hoc Judges under Article 224A of the Constitution of India should not be made unless 80% of the sanctioned strength is already either recommended or working, in abeyance. In other words, the requirement that the vacancies should not be more than 20% of the sanctioned strength, will be kept in abeyance for the time being.
4. Paragraph 61 of the impugned judgment and order dated 20.04.2021 will also remain in abeyance in terms of directions issued today.
5. We further observe that in the facts of the present case, each High Court may take recourse to Article 224A of the Constitution of India for the appointment of ad-hoc Judges between 2 to 5 in number, but not exceeding 10% of the sanctioned strength.
6. The ad-hoc Judges will sit in a Bench presided over by a sitting Judge of the High Court and decide pending criminal appeals.
7. The Memorandum of Procedure already in place, will be applied and resorted to for such appointments.
8. Liberty is given to the parties to move an appropriate application, if necessary. The Bench will reassemble for further directions, if required and necessary.