CJI Surya Kant: Retired Judges Plan Failed Due To Bar Opposition

• CJI Surya Kant revealed that a Supreme Court plan to appoint retired judges as ad hoc High Court judges failed due to bar association opposition.
• The initiative, which began under then-CJI Bobde, aimed to revive the practice of utilizing experienced retired judges.
• Bar associations passed resolutions against the proposal, leading CJI Kant to state that no Chief Justice can risk annoying the Bar.
• Article 224A of the Indian Constitution permits a High Court Chief Justice to request retired judges to serve in an ad hoc capacity.
• Justice Joymalya Bagchi noted that retired judges who had offered their services were left "in the lurch" after foregoing private assignments in anticipation of these appointments.

The Chief Justice's acknowledgment that he could not afford to "annoy the Bar" illustrates the extent to which the collective will of the legal profession can influence high-level judicial decisions, even those aimed at addressing systemic issues like judicial backlogs.

Chief Justice of India Surya Kant recently disclosed that a significant effort by the Supreme Court to reintroduce retired judges into High Courts as ad hoc judges ultimately failed due to strong resistance from various bar associations. Speaking on Thursday, CJI Kant explained that the initiative, which he had been part of under a bench led by then-CJI Bobde, aimed to revive the practice of appointing ad hoc judges from the pool of retired judicial officers. The intention was to make this practice a regular feature of the Indian judicial system.

However, this plan encountered substantial opposition, with bar associations actively passing resolutions against the proposal. CJI Kant explicitly stated that "no chief justice can risk annoying the Bar," indicating the critical role and influence of these legal bodies in judicial administration. These remarks were delivered by a Supreme Court Bench, which included CJI Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V Mohana, during proceedings related to a dispute over the seniority of judicial officers in Rajasthan.

During the hearing, Senior Advocate PS Patwalia presented arguments concerning direct recruits being positioned below intervening appointees, despite delays that were beyond the recruits' control. This specific case provided the backdrop for a broader discussion that encompassed issues such as judicial pensions and the valuable judicial experience that is lost when retired judges are unable to return to service.

The constitutional basis for the appointment of ad hoc judges in India is found in Article 224A of the Indian Constitution. This provision empowers the Chief Justice of a High Court to formally request a retired judge, either from that specific High Court or any other High Court, to serve in an ad hoc capacity. This mechanism is designed to address temporary increases in workload or backlogs, leveraging the experience of former judges.

The initiative spearheaded by the bench under then-CJI Bobde sought to operationalize this constitutional provision more systematically, aiming to bring the practice of retired judges re-appointment India into regular use. The subsequent Chief Justice Surya Kant remarks underscore the practical challenges in implementing such constitutional provisions when faced with organized opposition from key stakeholders within the legal fraternity.

The failure of the plan to re-engage retired judges has left a segment of the judiciary in an uncertain position, as highlighted by Justice Bagchi. He observed that retired judges who had offered their services, anticipating re-appointment, refrained from taking on private assignments. This created a legitimate expectation that was ultimately unfulfilled, leaving these experienced individuals "in the lurch." The discussion during the Rajasthan seniority dispute hearing further emphasized the broader implications, touching upon the financial security of retired judges through pensions and the significant loss of judicial expertise when these seasoned professionals are not utilized.

This episode clearly demonstrates the considerable power wielded by bar associations in shaping judicial policy and administration in India. The Chief Justice's acknowledgment that he could not afford to "annoy the Bar" illustrates the extent to which the collective will of the legal profession can influence high-level judicial decisions, even those aimed at addressing systemic issues like judicial backlogs. The outcome signifies that efforts to leverage the experience of retired judges through ad hoc appointments face substantial internal resistance, impacting judicial capacity.

This development underscores the significant influence of bar associations on judicial policy and administration in India, indicating that efforts to address judicial backlogs through ad hoc appointments face strong internal resistance. Lawyers should be aware that judicial capacity issues, particularly regarding experienced retired judges, are unlikely to see immediate relief through this mechanism due to ongoing political dynamics within the legal fraternity.

Source: Original reporting via legal news outlets