India Supreme Court Ad-hoc Judges Appointment Conditions Relaxation Case

In 2025, the Supreme Court of India heard a public interest litigation filed by Common Cause seeking to relax the stringent conditions for appointing ad-hoc judges under Article 224A of the Constitution. The petition argued that requirements such as the prior recommendation of the Chief Justice of a High Court and the consent of the retiring judge created procedural bottlenecks, obstructing efforts to address a backlog of over 80,000 cases in the apex court. The Union of India opposed a blanket relaxation, raising concerns about judicial independence and the potential politicization of temporary appointments. The court examined the constitutional scheme, the basic structure doctrine, and the urgent need for expeditious justice. It ultimately held that the Chief Justice of India could directly recommend retired judges for ad-hoc appointments with the consent of the judge and a limited consultation with a collegium of senior-most judges, thereby relaxing the earlier multi-layered procedure.

The Supreme Court relaxed the appointment conditions, holding that the Chief Justice of India may directly recommend retired judges for ad-hoc appointment with the consent of the concerned judge and after consultation with a collegium of the three senior-most judges of the Supreme Court, without requiring a prior recommendation from a High Court Chief Justice. The judgment affirmed that this procedure is in consonance with Article 224A and the basic structure of the Constitution.

Whether relaxing the conditions for appointing ad-hoc judges under Article 224A violates the basic structure doctrine and the principle of judicial independence; whether the Executive's role can be minimized in the process; and the extent to which the Chief Justice of India can exercise discretion without undermining constitutional safeguards.

The ruling was widely acclaimed by litigants and legal activists as a breakthrough in tackling the crisis of judicial delays and pendency, with expectations that the infusion of experienced ad-hoc judges would accelerate case disposal. However, a section of the bar and former judges expressed apprehension that relaxed norms could compromise judicial independence and be misused to favor retiring judges aligned with the executive. The judgment rekindled a national debate on comprehensive judicial reforms, transparency in appointments, and the balance between efficiency and institutional integrity.