NewKerala.com

SC Collegium Appoints 5 Retired Judges as Ad Hoc Judges in Allahabad HC

The Supreme Court Collegium has approved the appointment of five retired judges as ad hoc judges to the Allahabad High Court for a two-year period. This move utilizes Article 224A of the Constitution to address judicial vacancies and high pendency of cases. The appointments follow recent judicial rulings that relaxed the conditions for such ad hoc appointments, including capping them at 10% of a High Court's sanctioned strength. The court has also granted High Court Chief Justices flexibility in forming benches that include these ad hoc judges.

Key Points: SC Collegium Appoints 5 Ad Hoc Judges for Allahabad High Court

  • 5 retired judges appointed
  • Two-year term under Article 224A
  • Aims to reduce case pendency
  • Follows relaxed appointment norms
2 min read

SC Collegium recommends appointment of ad hoc judges in Allahabad HC

Supreme Court Collegium approves five retired judges as ad hoc judges in Allahabad HC for two years to tackle pendency under Article 224A.

"approved the proposal for appointment of the following retired Judges as ad hoc Judges - Supreme Court statement"

New Delhi, Feb 3

The Supreme Court Collegium, headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, on Tuesday approved the appointment of five retired judges as ad hoc judges of the Allahabad High Court for a period of two years under Article 224A of the Constitution.

"The Supreme Court Collegium, in its meeting held on 3rd February, 2026, has approved the proposal for appointment of the following retired Judges as ad hoc Judges of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in terms of Article 224-A of the Constitution of India, for a period of two years," said a statement uploaded on the website of the apex court.

The apex court Collegium approved the names of Justices Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan, Mohd. Aslam, Syed Aftab Husain Rizvi, Renu Agarwal and Jyotsna Sharma.

Article 224A empowers the Chief Justice of a High Court, with the prior consent of the President, to appoint retired judges as ad hoc judges when the number of judges in a particular High Court is insufficient, particularly to address high pendency or vacancies In January last year, the Supreme Court modified its earlier directions regulating the appointment of ad hoc judges under Article 224A.

A special bench had relaxed the requirement that at least 80 per cent of the sanctioned strength must be working or recommended before ad hoc appointments could be made, while capping the number of ad hoc judges at 10 per cent of the sanctioned strength of a High Court.

The apex court had emphasised that such judges would primarily be assigned to criminal benches and that the existing Memorandum of Procedure (MoP) would apply to their appointments.

In December last year, the apex court further tweaked its January 2025 verdict and granted High Court Chief Justices greater flexibility in deciding the composition of division benches involving ad hoc judges appointed under Article 224A.

It held that a High Court Chief Justice can constitute benches comprising two ad hoc judges, or a combination of one sitting judge and one ad hoc judge, and also determine which judge will preside over such benches.

- IANS

Share this article:

Reader Comments

S
Sarah B
While I understand the need to address vacancies, I hope this doesn't become a permanent workaround. The focus should remain on filling regular vacancies through the collegium system in a timely manner. This feels like a band-aid solution.
V
Vikram M
Good to see the collegium acting. The names seem balanced and experienced. Justice Renu Agarwal and Jyotsna Sharma's inclusion is particularly commendable. We need more women in senior judicial roles. 🙏
R
Rohit P
The tweaks in the rules, like allowing two ad hoc judges on a bench, show the SC is being pragmatic. UP's legal system is overloaded. If this helps common people get their cases heard faster, it's a win. Bhagwan kare yeh kaam aaye.
M
Michael C
Interesting use of constitutional provision. Article 224A seems like a smart tool in the judiciary's kit to manage workload crises. The cap at 10% of sanctioned strength is a sensible safeguard against overuse.
P
Priya S
My uncle has a property case pending in Allahabad HC for 8 years. Maybe now there's some hope. The focus on criminal benches is good, but civil and family cases also need attention. The backlog is crushing families.

We welcome thoughtful discussions from our readers. Please keep comments respectful and on-topic.

Leave a Comment

Minimum 50 characters 0/50