Despite SC nod, HCs not keen on appointing retired judges to tackle backlog
New Delhi: Despite the
Supreme Court
clearing the idea nearly five months ago, the
high courts
seem not to be keen on appointing
ad-hoc judges
to tackle pending criminal cases, details available with the government showed.
According to people aware of the procedure to appoint Supreme Court and high court judges, none of the high
court collegiums
have so far recommended names of retired judges to be appointed as ad-hoc judges.
There are 25 high courts in the country. Till June 11, no high court collegiums sent any such proposal to the
Union Law Ministry
.
Considering a backlog of over 18 lakh criminal cases, the Supreme Court on January 30 allowed the high courts to appoint ad-hoc judges, not exceeding 10 per cent of the court's total sanctioned strength.
Article 224A
of the Constitution allows the appointment of retired judges as ad-hoc judges in high courts to help deal with pendency.
Live Events
According to the laid down procedure, the respective high court collegiums send recommendations or names of candidates to be appointed as HC judges to the Department of Justice in the law ministry.
The department then adds inputs and details of the candidates before forwarding the same to the Supreme Court Collegium.
The SC Collegium then takes a final call and recommends to the government to appoint the selected persons as judges.
The president signs the 'warrant of appointment' of the newly-appointed judge.
The procedure to appoint ad-hoc judges will be the same except that the president will not sign the warrant of appointment. But the assent of the president will be sought for appointing ad-hoc judges.
Except in one case, there is no precedence of appointing retired judges as ad-hoc HC judges, officials had earlier pointed out.
In a judgement dated April 20, 2021, on the appointment of ad-hoc judges in the high courts, the top court imposed certain conditions.
However, later a special Supreme Court bench comprising then Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Justices B R Gavai (incumbent CJI) and Surya Kant relaxed certain conditions and kept some in abeyance.
The verdict, which was authored by former chief justice S A Bobde, directed retired high court judges to be appointed as ad-hoc ones for a period of two to three years to clear the backlog.
While one condition said that ad-hoc judges cannot be appointed if a high court was working with 80 per cent of its sanctioned strength, the other said ad-hoc judges could sit separately on benches to deal with cases.
Relaxing the conditions, the court said the requirement that vacancies should not be more than 20 per cent of the sanctioned strength for the time being shall be kept in abeyance.
The bench also said each high court should keep the appointment to two to five ad-hoc judges and not exceed 10 per cent of the total sanctioned strength.
"The ad-hoc judges will sit in a bench presided over by a sitting judge of the high court and decide pending criminal appeals," the apex court's order said.
The rarely used Article 224A of the Constitution deals with the appointment of ad-hoc judges in high courts.
"The chief justice of a high court for any state may at any time, 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," it says.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
an hour ago
- The Hindu
Court directs organisers of Lord Murugan conference to ensure communal harmony
Taking into account that the Madurai City Police have granted permission to the Hindu Munnani to conduct Muruga Bakthargalin Aanmeega Maanadu on June 22 and the extended pre-event with certain conditions, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court modified certain conditions and directed the organisers to ensure communal harmony was maintained. The court was hearing petitions filed by the Hindu Munnani seeking permission for an extended pre-event celebrations ahead of the conference, which included conducting poojas at the miniatures Lord Murugan's six abodes set up temporarily at Amma Thidal near the Vandiyur toll gate. The organisers also challenged the conditions imposed by the police. Impleading petitions opposing the conduct of the event and pre-event were also filed. Justice B. Pugalendhi observed that Article 25 of the Constitution guarantees every person a right to freely profess, practice, and propagate their religion. Therefore, any individual or organisation has the liberty to hold the function based on the religious faith. However, this right is not absolute. There can be restrictions, if it is intended to affect communal harmony. The court observed: 'Our country is a diverse society having people of different faiths. The exercise of religious freedom must be harmonised with a broader objective of maintaining public order, mortality, and communal harmony.' The Supreme Court has empowered law enforcement authorities to issue prohibitory orders whenever they found that persons, speeches, or actions were likely to trigger communal antagonism and hatred that affects communal harmony. In the present case, the State, as well as impleading petitioners, apprehend that in the guise of a religious event, the organisers may antagonise other communities, and there is a possibility of a communal clash, the court observed. The court said The Religious Institutions (Prevention of Misuse) Act defined a religious institution as any body for the promotion of any religion or persuasion and included any place or premises used as a place of public religious worship. Section 6 of the Act prohibits any ceremony, festival, congregation, procession, or assembly organised or held under its auspices to be used for any political activity. The petitioner organisation, which claims to promote the religious values, can also be included under this definition, it said. With regard to the condition on vehicle passes, the court said there was no reason to interfere with the condition. If any participant applies for the vehicle pass, the police shall issue it in 24 hours. In case of a rejection, the reasons have to be valid. The police will have an idea about the persons and number of vehicles, likely to participate in the conference. There is no need to furnish separate details by the organisers, the court observed. The court observed that the condition imposed to obtain the permission from the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department before installing miniatures appeared to have been imposed by the police in a mechanical manner. Similarly, another condition for permission of the Corporation authorities. The court permitted the petitioner to use two drones for covering the events and speakers, if any to be installed, must be within the ambit of the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules. The requirement of police permission for conducting the event is to ensure there are no law and order issues, the court said. Crowd management The petitioner said they did not need police assistance to manage the crowd as it already had volunteers. The court, taking into account that the event is to be conducted on a highway, said it should not lead to traffic congestion. Therefore, necessary police personnel may be deployed to ensure the free flow of traffic. If any police personnel were required by the organisers, the same shall be considered by collecting standard charges as per the Government Orders, the court observed. The apprehension of the State and impleading petitioners that the event may disturb communal harmony relied on the incident that took place in Thirupparankundram. The event is being organised as a religious conference for devotees of Lord Murugan. With that being the objective, the organisers of the event must comply strictly with the observations of the Supreme Court and ensure that communal harmony is maintained, the court directed.
The Hindu
2 hours ago
- The Hindu
The case of an FIR and an angry High Court
On May 14, the Madhya Pradesh High Court directed the State Police to register a First Information Report (FIR) against Cabinet Minister Vijay Shah for making allegedly inflammatory remarks against Indian Army officer, Colonel Sofiya Qureshi. Aghast at the Minister's remarks, the Court directed the police to register an FIR against him for offences under Sections 152, 196(1)(b) and 197(1)(c) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, which are related to acts endangering national unity and promoting enmity between groups. Though a criminal case was registered against Mr. Shah on the same date at Raikunda village under the Manpur police station limits in Indore (Rural) district, the Court questioned the manner in which the FIR was written. It said that the FIR was 'deficient in material particulars of the actions which constitute each of the specific offences' and could be 'quashed on a later date'. The Court, therefore, not only directed the police to consider the entire order of May 14 to be read as part of the FIR for all processes, but also decided to monitor the probe so that the police act fairly in accordance with the law without being influenced by any extraneous pressures. Essential ingredients While the law relating to the quashing of an FIR is well settled, so is the law relating to the registration of a cognisable offence. Section 171(1) of the BNS states that 'every information relating to the commission of a cognisable offence', if given orally, will be written, and if communicated electronically, will be taken on record by the officer in charge of a police station. So, information pertaining to commission of a cognisable offence must be written in the FIR. It is common for the police to reproduce the main complaint in the FIR if the complaint is given in writing. Even in a case where preliminary enquiry is conducted into a complaint which does not contain elements of a cognisable offence, the original complaint is reproduced in the FIR along with result of the enquiry. Therefore, though such an FIR may run into pages, the essential elements of an offence are not missed out. It is also prudent to write elements of the cognisable offence in the FIR, which form the basis for application of various sections of the law, because this gives the accused an opportunity to seek bail and apply for other protections under the law. There are many instances where the FIR has been found wanting in the ingredients of a cognisable offence and as a result, relief was provided by the constitutional courts. In Vinod Dua v. Union of India (2021), the Supreme Court, exercising its powers under Article 32 of the Constitution, quashed the FIR holding that 'all the offences set out in the FIR are not made out'. In Arnab Goswami v. the State of Maharashtra (2020), it granted bail to the appellant on the premise that 'a prima facie evaluation of the FIR does not establish the ingredients of the offence of abetment of suicide'. Quashing of an FIR The law relating to the quashing of an FIR is well settled. It is intrinsically entwined with the law relating to the writing of an FIR. High Courts can exercise their inherent powers under Section 528 of the BNS to quash an FIR, to prevent abuse of the process of any Court, or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. However, such powers are to be exercised sparingly and with caution. The Supreme Court, in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992), laid down certain guidelines on the circumstances where a High Court can exercise its inherent powers. The first two guidelines under which an FIR can be quashed are relevant to this case. The first guideline says the inherent powers to quash an FIR can be exercised 'where the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint, even if they are taken at face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused'. As per the second guideline, an FIR can be quashed 'where the allegations in the FIR and other material, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognisable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.' The Code refers to the erstwhile Criminal Procedure Code, and Section 155 pertains to a non-cognisable offence. Other situations include the allegations made in the FIR along with the evidence collected not disclosing the cognisable offence, the FIR disclosing only a non-cognisable offence, the allegations being absurd and inherently improbable, the offences with express legal bar given in the Code or the Act concerned, and criminal cases manifested with mala fide intentions. In the case under consideration by the M.P. High Court, while referring to the links of the video of the Minister's speech, the FIR states that the 'full order dated 14.05.2025 is enclosed'. Thus, if the FIR is challenged for want of sufficient material disclosing commission of a cognisable offence, the enclosed order of the Court cannot be lost sight of. As per the settled law, the FIR can be quashed only if the Court finds the material deficit after considering the FIR and the enclosed material (the court order in this case) in its entirety. Though it would have been prudent for the police to include relevant parts of the alleged speech which constitute offences mentioned in the FIR, the FIR if read in entirety, is not deficit in the required material. Therefore, the High Court's harsh comments against the police seem unwarranted and premature.
India Gazette
3 hours ago
- India Gazette
"Such arrogant leaders should abandon their pride": Bihar Deputy CM Choudhary on Lalu Yadav
Sasaram (Bihar) [India], June 15 (ANI): Amid the political controversy surrounding Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) chief Lalu Prasad Yadav allegedly insulting BR Ambedkar, Bihar Deputy Chief Minister Samrat Choudhary on Sunday hit out at the RJD chief, accusing him of displaying arrogance. Choudhary's remarks come amid an ongoing political row over Lalu Prasad Yadav's alleged disrespect toward BR Ambedkar during the former's birthday celebration, where Yadav had allegedly kept Ambedkar's picture near his feet. He further slammed the RJD chief, noting that no one has seen such an arrogant leader to date and that Yadav and his party workers should apologise for the disrespect shown to Ambedkar. 'No one has ever seen a leader as arrogant as Lalu Yadav to date. If he or any of his workers make a mistake regarding Babasaheb Ambedkar, they should apologise. He is arrogant. He continues to act arrogantly and humiliate everyone. Such arrogant leaders should abandon their pride,' Choudhary said. Earlier today, BJP leader Syed Shahnawaz Hussain slammed the RJD on Sunday, accusing them of showing disrespect to anyone other than their chief, Lalu Prasad Yadav. Hussain criticised the RJD over the recent controversy surrounding Lalu Yadav's birthday celebrations, alleging an insult to Dr BR Ambedkar. He alleged that the RJD chief had placed Ambedkar's picture near his feet during his birthday celebration, noting that it was 'not acceptable' to insult Baba Saheb in the guise of his birthday celebration. 'On one side, Lalu Yadav talks about social justice, and on the other, they insult Babasaheb. Celebrate your birthday, but what message do you want to convey by keeping Babasaheb's picture near your feet? It is not acceptable to insult Babasaheb under the guise of celebrating his birthday,' Hussain said. 'RJD does not respect anyone other than Lalu Yadav. They are just insulting Babasaheb, and it has become a habit of his; he has become addicted (to insulting Ambedkar). The people of Bihar will answer to this,' he further charged. Meanwhile, on Saturday, RJD leader Tejashwi Yadav hit out at the BJP, accusing its leaders of having no connection with BR Ambedkar, the Constitution, or reservation policies, while defending his father Lalu Prasad Yadav. 'These (BJP) people have nothing to do with Baba Saheb, the Constitution, and Reservation. Lalu Yadav has installed many statues of Baba Saheb Ambedkar in Bihar. We are the people who believe in Ambedkar's ideology. The BJP only spread lies,' Tejashwi asserted. 'Lalu Yadav works for 10 hours at the age of 78 and meets people. He is ill, but still they accuse him of such things,' he further highlighted. These political developments come while the Assembly Elections are expected in Bihar later this year. (ANI)
