Supreme Court modifies Lok Prahari judgment on appointment of ad hoc judges

Why in News

• On 17 December 2025, the Supreme Court modified its earlier directions in the Lok Prahari v. Union of India case.
• The modification grants greater flexibility to Chief Justices of High Courts in deciding the composition of Division Benches involving ad hoc judges appointed under Article 224A of the Constitution.

Background: Article 224A

• Article 224A allows the appointment of retired High Court judges as ad hoc judges.
• Purpose:
  • To reduce case pendency, especially in criminal appeals, without permanently increasing judge strength.

Judicial Backlog Context

• As per National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG):
  • Total criminal cases pending in High Courts: 18,98,833
  • Cases pending for over 1 year: 68.27% (12,96,374 cases)
• Sanctioned strength of High Court judges: 1,122
• Vacancies (as of 15 December 2025): 298
• High Courts face severe shortage of judges alongside mounting criminal arrears.

Lok Prahari Case (2021) – Original Directions

In Lok Prahari v. Union of India (April 2021), the Supreme Court:

• Laid down conditions for invoking Article 224A, such as:
  • Vacancies exceeding 20% of sanctioned strength
  • Cases pending over five years
  • Over 10% backlog older than five years
  • Disposal rate lower than rate of institution
• Directed that:
  • If two ad hoc judges are appointed, they must sit together as a Division Bench.

January 2025 Supreme Court Judgment

• Alarmed by criminal pendency, the SC:
  • Activated Article 224A
  • Directed High Courts to appoint retired judges as ad hoc judges specifically for criminal appeals
• Key modification (2025):
  • An ad hoc judge must necessarily sit with a serving judge, not independently.

December 2025 Modification (Current Order)

• The Supreme Court relaxed rigid bench composition rules, allowing:
  • Chief Justices of High Courts discretion to decide:
    • Whether ad hoc judges sit with serving judges
    • Or how Division Benches involving ad hoc judges are constituted
• This was done to address practical difficulties in implementation.

Key Observation by the Chief Justice of India

• CJI Surya Kant highlighted a crucial ground reality:
  • Retired judges are reluctant to return as ad hoc judges
  • Reason:
    • They feel “embarrassed” sitting as junior judges alongside younger serving judges
• This psychological and professional discomfort was hindering effective use of Article 224A.

Sources: TH & Live Law