The Indian judiciary is grappling with an overwhelming backlog of cases, a crisis that has persisted for decades. With over 50 million pending cases across various levels of courts, delayed justice has become the norm rather than the exception. The implications are profound—eroding public trust in the legal system, weakening the rule of law, and prolonging the suffering of litigants who seek timely redressal of their grievances. In an effort to expedite case disposal while retaining judicial expertise, the appointment of ad hoc judges has emerged as a potential solution. However, the key question remains: is this a sustainable and holistic approach to judicial reform, or merely a temporary fix that fails to address the structural inefficiencies of the system?

The Judicial Pendency Crisis: Understanding the Scale of the Problem

The backlog of cases in India’s judiciary is staggering, affecting all tiers of the legal system. The National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG) presents alarming statistics:

·         The Supreme Court alone has over 71,000 pending cases.

·         High Courts are burdened with nearly 6 million cases.

·         Subordinate courts face the most severe crisis, with over 41 million cases awaiting adjudication.

Multiple factors contribute to this crisis, including procedural delays, excessive adjournments, and the growing complexity of legal disputes. However, the most critical issue remains the shortage of judges. According to the Law Commission of India, the country has only around 21 judges per million people, a figure significantly lower than that of developed nations. Successive governments have struggled to fill judicial vacancies on time, creating a bottleneck that chokes the judicial process. In this context, the appointment of ad hoc judges is seen as a pragmatic measure to alleviate the crisis.

Ad Hoc Judges: Constitutional Backing and Appointment Process

The provision for appointing ad hoc judges is embedded in Article 224A of the Indian Constitution. It allows for the appointment of retired High Court judges to serve temporarily in order to address judicial pendency. While their role is meant to be supplementary rather than permanent, ad hoc judges provide much-needed assistance in clearing long-pending cases.

The process of appointment involves several layers of scrutiny:

1.   The Chief Justice of a High Court (CJHC) recommends a retired judge based on the urgency of pending cases.

2.   The State Government (Chief Minister and Governor) reviews and forwards the proposal.

3.   The Union Law Ministry consults the Chief Justice of India (CJI) before presenting the proposal to the Prime Minister.

4.   The President of India grants final approval.

5.   A formal Gazette notification confirms the appointment.

While this process ensures oversight and prevents arbitrary appointments, it also introduces bureaucratic delays. Given the urgency of the crisis, a streamlined mechanism for appointing ad hoc judges is necessary to make this measure more effective.

The Supreme Court’s Evolving Stand on Ad Hoc Appointments

The Supreme Court has played an active role in regulating ad hoc appointments to ensure their effectiveness. In Lok Prahari v. Union of India (2021), the Court set clear "trigger points" for appointing ad hoc judges:

·         If vacancies exceed 20% of the sanctioned strength.

·         If over 10% of cases have been pending for more than five years.

·         If the case clearance rate is lower than the filing rate.

However, in January 2025, the Supreme Court revised these conditions to address the increasing backlog of criminal cases. A Bench led by Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna introduced new measures:

·         Ad hoc judges would primarily focus on criminal appeals.

·         They would sit alongside permanent judges to ensure judicial oversight.

·         The 20% vacancy threshold was relaxed, enabling broader appointments.

·         The number of ad hoc judges would be capped at 10% of a High Court’s sanctioned strength.

These measures indicate the judiciary's struggle to strike a balance between efficiency and maintaining institutional integrity.

The Promise of Ad Hoc Judges: Benefits and Practical Advantages

Ad hoc appointments come with several advantages that make them a viable short-term measure:

1.   Expertise and Efficiency: Retired judges possess extensive legal experience, allowing them to handle complex cases with greater efficiency.

2.   Cost-Effectiveness: Unlike the lengthy process of recruiting and training new judges, ad hoc appointments save both time and financial resources.

3.   Immediate Backlog Reduction: By focusing on long-pending cases, ad hoc judges provide immediate relief to an overburdened judiciary.

4.   Flexible Deployment: The system allows retired judges to be called upon as needed, preventing a permanent expansion of judicial posts.

The Pitfalls: Temporary Relief or Long-Term Dependency?

Despite their advantages, the appointment of ad hoc judges is not a substitute for comprehensive judicial reforms. Several concerns arise from this practice:

·         Judicial Independence at Risk: Since the executive plays a role in approving ad hoc judges, there is a potential for political interference.

·         Continuity Issues: Temporary judges may not oversee cases to completion, leading to inconsistencies in adjudication.

·         Delayed Structural Reforms: Over-reliance on ad hoc judges may reduce pressure on the government to fill permanent judicial vacancies.

·         Resource Constraints: The additional allowances and logistical support required for ad hoc judges could divert funds from long-term judicial infrastructure development.

The Way Forward: Strengthening the Judiciary Beyond Stopgap Measures

For ad hoc appointments to be truly effective, they must be integrated into a broader judicial reform strategy. Some key recommendations include:

1. Strengthening the Framework for Ad Hoc Judges

·         Establish an independent review board to oversee appointments.

·         Implement fixed terms (2–3 years) with performance-based extensions.

·         Develop clear case transition protocols to ensure judicial continuity.

2. Leveraging Technology for Judicial Efficiency

·         Implement digital case tracking systems to monitor progress in real-time.

·         Expand virtual hearings, particularly in criminal and commercial cases.

·         Utilize AI-based legal research tools to assist judges in expediting case reviews.

3. Enhancing Judicial Capacity

·         Maintain a reserve panel of retired judges for immediate deployment.

·         Establish mentorship programs where ad hoc judges work alongside permanent judges to maintain consistency in judicial interpretation.

·         Increase the sanctioned strength of judges in High Courts and subordinate courts to meet the growing caseload.

4. Ensuring Judicial Independence

·         Create a Judicial Appointments Commission to prevent executive overreach in the selection of ad hoc judges.

·         Conduct regular performance reviews to ensure judicial integrity and efficiency.

5. Policy Integration and Sustainable Funding

·         Align ad hoc appointments with broader legislative and policy reforms to enhance overall judicial efficiency.

·         Secure sustainable funding to balance judicial salaries, infrastructure expansion, and technological advancements.

Conclusion: A Step Forward, But Not the Destination

The appointment of ad hoc judges offers a pragmatic yet temporary solution to India’s judicial backlog. While their expertise and efficiency make them valuable, they cannot replace the need for systemic reform. Judicial vacancies must be filled promptly, digital infrastructure must be strengthened, and judicial independence must be safeguarded. The judiciary must tread carefully—ad hoc appointments should complement, not substitute, long-term strategies for judicial efficiency. If India fails to address the root causes of case pendency, the nation risks turning a temporary remedy into a permanent crutch, exacerbating the deeper crisis of delayed justice.