'Article 224A Of Constitution A Salutary Provision' : Supreme Court Reserves Orders On Plea For Ad-Hoc Judges In High Court
The Supreme Court on Thursday reserved orders on a plea seeking appointment of ad-hoc judges in High Courts using Article 224A of the Constitution of India.A bench headed by the Chief Justice of India SA Bobde said that the case will not be finally disposed off and interim orders in the nature of continuing mandamus will be passed.The bench, also comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and...
The Supreme Court on Thursday reserved orders on a plea seeking appointment of ad-hoc judges in High Courts using Article 224A of the Constitution of India.
A bench headed by the Chief Justice of India SA Bobde said that the case will not be finally disposed off and interim orders in the nature of continuing mandamus will be passed.
The bench, also comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Surya Kant, was considering a PIL filed by filed by an NGO named "Lok Prahari" seeking the invocation of Article 224A to tackle the issue of mounting case arrears at High Courts.
"Article 224A is a salutory provisions", CJI SA Bobde said during the hearing. He said that if ad-hoc judges are used for clearing arrears, the courts will be able to devote time for deciding constitution bench matters.
Justice SK Kaul suggested that ad-hoc judges will hear old cases pending for over 10-15 years and the regular judges will hear the current matters.
On the last hearing date, the bench had asked the senior advocates representing different High Courts to make joint suggestions regarding the appointment of ad-hoc judges.
Today, Senior Advocate Arvind P Datar, appearing for the Orissa High Court, informed the bench that a written note has been submitted(given at the end of the story) based on the discussions. The note contains suggestions regarding the trigger point for activating appointment of ad-hoc judges, their tenure, appointment process, allowances etc.
Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, President of the Supreme Court Bar Association, said the ad-hoc judges must be allowed to take arbitration work.
However, the bench was not agreeable to this suggestion.
Both CJI and Justice Kaul said that allowing ad-hoc judges to do arbitration work will lead to complications.
The bench also expressed the view that the allowances of ad-hoc judges must be drawn from the Consolidated Fund of India.
"Nobody can interfere with the payment of salaries from the consolidated fund of India. The ad hoc judges should also be paid from therein", the CJI said.
The CJI also expressed agreement with the suggestion of Senior Advocate Vikas Singh that ad-hoc appointments should not be made without making recommendations for regular vacancies.
"They(High Courts) have to make recommendations. They can't keep vacancies and appoint ad-hoc judges", the Attorney General KK Venugopal said.
The CJI said that the fitness of the person for the continued appointment will be most relevant factor.
The major aspects discussed by the bench in the case are :
- What should be the trigger point which activates the process of appointment of judges under Article 224A? What should be the level of pendency at which this process should be initiated?
- Whether the pendency must be determined branch wise or generally?
- What could be the uniform criteria to determine the number of ad-hoc judges at High Courts and their tenure?
- Whether the process of selection judges under Article 224A should undergo the same process of appointment for regular judges, involving the collegiums at High Courts and Supreme Court, the State Executive and the Union Law Ministry?
- What should be the allowances for such judges under Article 224A?
Click here to read the note submitted by Senior Advocate Arvind Datar