{"id":44900,"date":"2018-03-04T12:33:32","date_gmt":"2018-03-04T07:03:32","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/?p=44900"},"modified":"2018-03-04T12:35:17","modified_gmt":"2018-03-04T07:05:17","slug":"appointment-of-judges-easing-the-burden","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/constitutional-law-news\/supreme-court-news\/appointment-of-judges-easing-the-burden\/","title":{"rendered":"Easing the Burden"},"content":{"rendered":"
Above: Lawyers and litigants discussing cases at a Gurgaon district court\/Photo: Anil Shakya<\/em><\/p>\n In a move that could increase the number of judges in high courts and reduce pendency, the apex court has ruled that retired judicial officers can be appointed as judges in these courts <\/strong><\/p>\n ~By Puneet Nicholas Yadav<\/strong><\/p>\n On February 23, a Supreme Court bench of Justices AK Sikri and Ashok Bhushan ruled that retired judicial officers can be appointed as judges of any high court under Article 217(2)(a) of the Constitution. The verdict also said that additional judges can be appointed to high courts provided their tenure is less than two years and the appointment is done in conformity with provisions laid down in Article 224 of the Constitution.<\/p>\n The verdict was delivered against a petition that challenged the appointment of two retired judicial officers\u2014Virendra Kumar Mathur and Ram Chandra Singh Jhala\u2014as additional judges of the Rajasthan High Court on May 12, 2017.<\/p>\n The verdict can be seen as a possible remedy for filling up vacancies of judges in various high courts, thereby expediting the tardy pace at which cases are disposed of by these courts.<\/p>\n At a time when an average of 1.65 lakh cases are pending before 24 high courts, this verdict, which appears to be a definitive step towards reducing pendency, should have created a buzz.<\/p>\n So why did it not?<\/p>\n Justice AP Shah, former chief justice of the Delhi High Court, explained to India Legal<\/em>: \u201cAppointment of judicial officers as additional judges in high courts, particularly when the burden of pending cases increases, is nothing new. The Constitution, through Article 224, specifically provides for appointment of additional judges to tackle arrears in high courts. However, the apex court has now clarified that if due to bureaucratic delays, the appointment of a judicial officer as an additional judge is confirmed by the president after the said officer has retired but is still below 62 years of age, such an appointment will not be dismissed.\u201d<\/p>\n The issue of bureaucratic delays holding up appointments of judges\u2014permanent or additional\u2014is, in fact, at the core of the Supreme Court verdict.<\/p>\n LONG DELAYED<\/strong><\/p>\n Consider the facts of the petition that was filed before Justices Sikri and Bhushan. The recommendation to appoint Mathur and Jhala, then serving judicial officers, as additional judges of the Rajasthan High Court was made by the state\u2019s acting chief justice on February 18, 2016. However, the long winding process that unfolds before a judge is actually appointed ensured that these two appointments were confirmed only on May 12, 2017\u2014almost 15 months after they were recommended. The process includes endorsement of the recommended names by the chief minister, governor, the Supreme Court collegium, the ministry of law and justice and then, finally, the president.<\/p>\n