Instead of relying on the ad hoc appointments of judges in the High Courts for disposal of pending cases
The latest order of the Supreme Court, which approves the appointment of ad hoc judges in the High Courts, is an important and controversial incident in the judicial scenario of the country, quoting Article 224A of the Constitution. The intention of settling the cases hanging behind this step is clear. It is worth paying that more than 57 lakh cases are pending in the High Courts and the average of the vacancies of the judges is about 40 percent. Despite this, this decision creates concerns about the long -term impact and integrity of the judicial system. This decision demands intensive criticism in the light of constitutional principles and the need for systematic reforms.
Article 224A call seems to be an immediate reaction to a crisis that has been created for years. The number of cases hanging in the courts of the country has been very high. More than half of them are pending in five High Courts alone. The decision to appoint ad hoc of retired judges is not only a practical solution, but also an adverse comment on the delay in filling the vacant judicial posts. This delay is the result of the deficiencies of the collegium system, whether the result of government inactivity, but it is clear that the situation is not good.
Article 224A provides ad hoc appointment of retired judges for immediate management of backlog cases. This provision has been used less in the past. Instead of addressing issues related to the system, it has been resorted to mainly for special needs. In such a situation, the aim of the Supreme Court is to provide immediate relief from its use, although the dependence on such temporary measures rather than addressing infrastructural shortcomings in the judiciary also raises some basic questions.
However, the Supreme Court has set some guidelines for the ad hoc appointments of the judges. The court has said that this should be done only when the vacancies cross the 20 per cent of the sanctioned workforce or more than 10 per cent of the cases have been five years old. This test may prove to be effective, but from the perspective of long -term solutions it seems more response than positive strategy. Therefore, questions are being raised on this.
The dependence on ad hoc for the disposal of backlog cases is just an exercise like making ointment on a deep old wounds. Maybe it gives immediate relief but it does not address issues that create judicial disabilities. The retired ad hoc judges cannot be accountable and active at the same level compared to the full -time serving judges. This will pose a danger of discrepancy in decisions and weakening of judicial standards.
Not only this, there are also concerns about the erosion of judicial integrity. The appointment process of ad hoc judges is not as link as the process of the judged judges. It creates the question of qualification and transparency. If it is not done in law, the appointments may create perceptions of favoritism and prejudice, which can reduce the trust of the people in the already weakened system. Its effects can be widespread.
The appointment of ad hoc judges also creates constitutional concerns related to accountability and monitoring. Article 124 (2) states that the appointment of judges should be based on their merit and suitability for the post. Relying on ad hoc appointment may pose a danger of these constitutional monitoring weakening. This can make way for bias and create doubts, which can eventually lead to an chaotic system.
The system of ad hoc appointment can also compromise on judicial freedom, which is the test of our democratic structure. The perception that judicial positions are filled with arbitrariness, can affect the purity of permanent appointments and may be its long -term implications for the rule of law.
Therefore, instead of relying on ad hoc appointments, it is important to prefer existing vacancies to fill with qualified candidates. For this, both the executive and the judiciary will have to be committed so that the appointment process can be made smooth and the bureaucracy in its path can be removed. To give time -bound justice and maintain the trust of the public, it is necessary that the workforce in the judiciary is completed.
These appointments should be directed by the current Memorandum of Procedure to decide that only those with appropriate experience and expertise will be taken into consideration. It is important that we make a clear standard for the appointment of ad hoc judges so that it does not lead to political impact or bias.
Not only this, the training and capacity promotion of new judges should also be invested. A strong training structure can provide the judges the necessary skills to deal with complex judicial issues and to manage the burden of cases. This will not only improve the private performance of the judges but will also make the judiciary more competent and competitive.
Apart from this, it is also necessary to create an environment that can encourage the judges to continuously learn. Regular workshops, seminars and training programs can help judges in staying updated by emerging judicial criteria and ethles which can increase their efficiency to give justice. The most important thing is to maintain public trust in the judiciary. For this, transparency in both appointment process and judicial proceedings is needed. Therefore, a clear message about how the judges are being selected and how the pending cases are being managed will be able to increase the understanding of the people and clean the webs on the judicial system.
Dialogue with various parties, such as professional legalists, civil society organizations and academic institutions can give valuable insight to improve judicial processes. The work done together can provide innovative solutions that can address backlog cases and systemic flaws together. Establishing a system of monitoring can increase accountability. Such systems may include a regular check -up of nye performance and public opening of case settlement rate, which will be able to raise confidence in citizens in the efficacy of judiciary.
Now the time has come to embrace systematic changes instead of taking temporary measures of the country to fulfill the existing demands and remain true for constitutional ideals and serve the future generations. Article 224A may be an immediate response to the deepening crisis, but it cannot be an option of numerous improvement as the judiciary is not just giving justice, but also to see justice in an independent and intuitive manner. Then, in today’s era, when questions are being raised on the functioning of the judiciary from the opposition and many circles, then serious measures are necessary.
(The author is a researcher of law, ideas are private)
