Supreme Court Ad-Hoc Judge Appointment Relaxation Case

In 2025, the Supreme Court of India, led by Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna, took suo motu cognizance of a critical backlog of cases. The core matter involved relaxing the stringent conditions outlined in Article 128 and related case law for appointing ad-hoc judges to the apex court. Facing a crisis of pendency, the Court deliberated on whether retired Supreme Court judges could be appointed on a temporary basis without the standard requirement of a constitutional amendment or new primary legislation. The Court examined the constitutional framework to find an immediate remedy, aiming to bypass procedural deadlocks with the executive branch. The Union Ministry of Law and Justice provided its input, emphasizing the need to maintain judicial independence while addressing the practical exigency of clearing long-pending cases in the world's busiest constitutional court.

The Supreme Court's Constitution Bench delivered a pragmatic verdict, holding that to preserve the fundamental right to speedy justice, the Court can temporarily relax the requirement for ad-hoc judge appointments. It stipulated a fixed tenure for retired judges appointed under this relaxed mechanism and set strict limits on the type and number of cases they could handle, ensuring this was a one-time constitutional measure solely to clear a defined block of backlogged cases, without setting a permanent precedent for regular appointments.

The primary legal dispute focused on whether the Supreme Court possesses the inherent constitutional power to relax appointment qualifications and procedures for ad-hoc judges under Article 128 of the Constitution of India to address an unprecedented case backlog, without explicit parliamentary legislation. A key point of contention was the potential violation of the basic structure doctrine by altering established appointment norms and the separation of powers between the judiciary and the executive in judicial appointments.

The verdict had a profound social impact, widely praised for its judicial pragmatism in tackling the justice delivery crisis affecting millions of litigants. It was seen as a necessary innovation to uphold public trust in the judiciary's capacity for self-correction. However, it also sparked a debate in legal academia and among civil society groups about the potential long-term risks of bypassing the collegium system's exclusivity in appointments. The case initiated a national conversation on judicial reforms, workload management, and the sustainability of judicial infrastructure in India.