**Executive Summary**
The document is the response of the Minister of Law and Justice to Unstarred Question No. 1274 raised in Lok Sabha on February 6th, 2026, regarding the appointment of ad-hoc judges in High Courts. The response addresses the government's actions following the Supreme Court's proposal for such appointments, the number of pending criminal appeals, and the government's efforts to address judicial vacancies. It also addresses the formal policy to institutionalise ad-hoc judge appointments.
**Key Points / Main Content**
* **Supreme Court Guidelines:**
* The Supreme Court has stipulated guidelines for the appointment of ad-hoc judges in its judgment dated 20.04.2021 in W.P. (C) No. 1236 of 2019.
* The Supreme Court orders dated 30.01.2025 and 18.12.2025 partially amended the judgment dated 20.04.2021.
* Each High Court may appoint between 2 and 5 ad-hoc Judges, not exceeding 10% of the sanctioned strength of the High Court, under Article 224A of the Constitution.
* The procedure for appointing ad-hoc Judges is based on the Memorandum of Procedure (MoP) for High Court Judges.
* **Pending Criminal Appeals:**
* As per the National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG), 7,63,539 criminal appeals are pending in various High Courts.
* **Appointment Procedure:**
* For the Supreme Court, the Chief Justice of India initiates appointment proposals.
* For the High Courts, the Chief Justice of the concerned High Court initiates proposals in consultation with two senior-most puisne Judges.
* High Courts should make recommendations at least 6 months before a vacancy, but this timeline is rarely observed.
* The views of the concerned State Government are obtained in accordance with the MoP.
* Recommendations from the High Court Collegium, State Governments, and the Government of India are forwarded to the Supreme Court Collegium (SCC) for advice.
* The appointment of judges is a continuous, integrated, and collaborative process.
* Appointment requires consultation and approval from various Constitutional Authorities at both State and Central level.
* Only individuals recommended by the SCC are appointed as Judges of the High Courts.
* **Pendency Factors:**
* Case pendency is caused by factors like the complexity of facts, nature of evidence, cooperation of stakeholders, availability of infrastructure, staff, and proper application of rules.
* The vacancy position of judges does not necessarily directly correlate with case pendency.
**Impact Analysis**
**Stakeholder: High Courts**
* **Impact:** High Courts are enabled to appoint ad-hoc judges within specified limits (2-5 judges, up to 10% of sanctioned strength) based on Supreme Court guidelines and MoP, to address pending criminal appeals.
* **Action Required:** Initiate proposals for ad-hoc judge appointments in consultation with senior judges, adhering to MoP guidelines and considering Supreme Court directives.
**Stakeholder: Chief Justice of India**
* **Impact:** The Chief Justice of India plays a role in the initiation of proposals for appointment of Judges.
* **Action Required:** Initiate proposals for appointment of Judges in the Supreme Court.
**Stakeholder: Supreme Court Collegium (SCC)**
* **Impact:** The SCC provides advice on the appointment of judges.
* **Action Required:** Review and provide advice on the recommendations from the High Court Collegium, State Governments, and the Government of India.
**Stakeholder: State Governments**
* **Impact:** State Governments' views are obtained regarding High Court appointments.
* **Action Required:** Provide input and reports on the candidates under consideration for High Court appointments.
**Stakeholder: Government of India**
* **Impact:** The Government of India is involved in the collaborative process of appointing judges.
* **Action Required:** Review and forward recommendations to the Supreme Court Collegium (SCC) for advice.
Key Entities Referenced
High Courts: Refers to the High Courts of India, where ad-hoc judges are to be appointed to address the backlog of cases.
Article 224A of the Constitution of India: Deals with the appointment of ad-hoc judges in High Courts.
Supreme Court: India's apex court, which proposed the appointment of ad-hoc judges in High Courts and provided guidelines.
Memorandum of Procedure (MoP): Document that outlines the procedure for the appointment of High Court Judges, applicable to ad-hoc judges as well.
Ministry of Law and Justice: The government ministry responsible for matters of law, justice and legislative affairs.
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
LOK SABHA
UNSTARRED QUESTION NO. 1274
TO BE ANSWERED ON FRIDAY, THE 6th FEBRUARY, 2026
APPOINTMENT OF AD-HOC JUDGES IN HIGH COURTS
1274. SHRI GAURAV GOGOI:
Will the Minister of LAW AND JUSTICE be pleased to state:
(a) whether the Government has taken note of the Supreme Court’s proposal to
appoint ad-hoc judges in High Courts with high pendency of criminal
appeals under Article 224A of the Constitution, if so, the action taken in this
regard and if not, the reasons therefor;
(b) the total number of criminal appeals pending in High Courts across the
country, along with a breakup for the last five years, State-wise and year-
wise;
(c) the details of the steps taken by the Government to address judicial
vacancies and expedite disposal of criminal appeals; and
(d) whether the Government is considering a formal policy to institutionalise
the appointment of ad-hoc judges in High Courts to reduce the backlog of
cases, if so, the details thereof and if not, the reasons therefor?
ANSWER
MINISTER OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) OF THE MINISTRY OF
LAW AND JUSTICE; AND MINISTER OF STATE IN THE MINISTRY OF
PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS
(SHRI ARJUN RAM MEGHWAL)
[1](a) to (d): The Supreme Court vide judgment dated 20.04.2021 in W.P. (C) No.
1236 of 2019 had stipulated guidelines for such appointments. Supreme Court Bench
vide its orders dated 30.01.2025 and 18.12.2025 has partially amended the aforesaid
judgment dated 20.04.2021 and has, inter-alia, directed that each High Court may take
recourse to Article 224A of the Constitution of India for appointment of ad-hoc
Judges, between 2 and 5 in number but not exceeding 10% of the sanctioned strength
of the High Court. It has also been directed that the procedure for appointment of ad-
hoc Judges, as given in the Memorandum of Procedure (MoP) for appointment of
High Court Judges is applicable for such appointments.
As per the National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG), 7,63,539 criminal appeals are
pending in various High Courts.
As per the MoP, the responsibility for initiation of proposals for appointment of
Judges in the Supreme Court vests with the Chief Justice of India, while the
responsibility for initiation of proposals for appointment of Judges in the High Courts
vests with the Chief Justice of the concerned High Court, in consultation with two
senior-most puisne Judges of the High Court. As per the MoP, the High Courts are
required to make recommendations at least 06 months before the occurrence of a
vacancy. However, this time limit is rarely observed. For appointments to the High
Courts, the views of concerned State Government are obtained in accordance with the
MoP. The recommendations also have to be considered in the light of such other
reports as may be available to the Government in respect of the names under
consideration. The recommendations of the High Court Collegium, the State
Governments and the Government of India are then forwarded to the Supreme Court
Collegium (SCC) for advice.
Appointment of Judges in the higher judiciary is a continuous, integrated and
collaborative process between the executive and the judiciary. It requires consultation
and approval from various Constitutional Authorities both at State and Central level.
Only those persons whose names have been recommended by the SCC are appointed
as Judges of the High Courts.
[2]Pendency of cases in courts arise due to several factors which inter alia, include
complexity of the facts involved, nature of evidence, co-operation of stake-holders
viz. Bar, investigation agencies, witnesses and litigants besides the availability of
physical infrastructure, supporting court staff and proper application of rules and
procedures to monitor, track and bunch hearing of cases. Furthermore, pendency of
cases and vacancy position of judges in High Courts are not necessarily directly
related.
****
[3]