Government puzzled by judiciary’s clamour for ad hoc judges

New Delhi : The government is baffled by the higher judiciary's insistence on appointing ad hoc judges in high courts across the country despite massive vacancies for regular judges.

The differing stands of the government and the judiciary became apparent after the resolution adopted at the Chief Justices' Conference in April. Ignoring the government's stand that no ad hoc judges should be appointed unless regular vacancies have been filled, the resolution recommended ad hoc judges for high courts.

According to latest official figures, there are around 200 vacancies for regular judges in various high courts.

But the resolution passed by the conference, presided over by Chief Justice K.G. Balakrishnan, clearly stated: "As far as the issue of appointment of ad hoc judges in the high courts is concerned, the stand of the central government that unless all regular vacancies of the high courts are filled, was discussed.

"The conference is of the uniform view that ad hoc judges should be appointed in such high courts where the vacancies of regular judges are not more than 25 percent."

It went on to state: "The recommendations (for appointment of ad hoc judges) already made by the chief justices of various high courts be processed accordingly."

Said a senior law ministry official: "This has left the government puzzled. We are yet to figure out the rationale behind appointment of ad hoc judges despite having vacancies for regular judges in high courts."

Asked why the judiciary should insist upon ad hoc judges despite the large number of vacancies for regular judges, Supreme Court Registrar General V.K. Jain told IANS: "It's only a recommendation to the government. It's up to the government to accept or reject it."

An official of the Department of Justice, under the law ministry, which processes the Supreme Court's proposal for appointment of judges in the high courts and the Supreme Court, rebutted by saying: "Where is the question of the government rejecting an apex court's proposal on judicial appointment?"

A Supreme Court ruling in October 1993 made it imperative for the government to secure presidential assents on proposals of judicial appointments initiated by the judiciary. Earlier, judicial appointments were the prerogative of the executive.

Against the total sanctioned strength of 689 judges in 21 high courts across the country, there are 598 judges – a gap of 91 judges.

The government sanctioned 106 more posts after the 2006 triennial review of the strength of judges in high courts, taking the total number of vacancies to 197.

Explaining the differences between an ad hoc appointment and a regular judge, an official said even a retired judge can be appointed on an ad hoc basis in high courts. An ad hoc appointment is not considered while evaluating seniority either.