Supreme Court: Bar Association Resistance Hinders Re-engagement of Retired Judges

The Supreme Court of India has expressed concern that its 2021 initiative to appoint retired judges as ad hoc high court judges remains largely unimplemented. The move, intended to utilize Article 224A of the Constitution to address a massive backlog of over 6.5 million cases in high courts, has faced significant opposition from bar associations.

Implementation Challenges

During a recent hearing regarding judicial pensions, a bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, along with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana, noted that efforts to bring in retired judges with strong track records have been thwarted by local bar groups passing resolutions against these appointments.

Justice Bagchi further observed that many retired high court judges are currently engaged in lucrative private practices, arbitration work, or legal consultancy, making them reluctant to return to the bench as ad hoc appointees.

Legislative and Judicial Context

• 2021 Initiative: The Supreme Court activated Article 224A to provide a framework for re-engaging retired judges to tackle cases pending for over 15 years.
• Policy Adjustments: In January 2024, a bench comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna, B.R. Gavai, and Surya Kant eased several stringent conditions from the original 2021 ruling to facilitate better adoption.
• Current Guidelines: Up to five retired high court judges can be reappointed, provided they do not exceed 10% of an HC’s total sanctioned strength. Conditions previously requiring vacancies to be below 20% and a specific threshold of five-year-old cases have been held in abeyance.

Historically, the appointment of retired judges as ad hoc members has been rare and task-specific, such as for election petitions or special litigation benches, rather than for general backlog clearance.