Key differences Between Supreme Court And High Court Ad Hoc Judges

 
image

An ad hoc judge under Indian law can refer to two different scenarios:

1. Ad hoc judges in the Supreme Court (Article 127):

  • Appointed by the Chief Justice of India when there's a shortage of judges to maintain a quorum for a particular case.
  • Must be a sitting judge of a High Court who meets the eligibility criteria for a Supreme Court judge.
  • Appointed after consultation with the concerned High Court's Chief Justice and with the President's consent.
  • Has all the jurisdiction, powers, and privileges of a Supreme Court judge for the designated period.

2. Ad hoc judges in High Courts (Article 224A):

  • Appointed by the Chief Justice of a High Court, with the President's consent.
  • Can be a retired judge of the same High Court who agrees to the appointment.
  • Has all the jurisdiction, powers, and privileges of a High Court judge but isn't considered a permanent judge.
  • Primarily deals with cases older than 5 years, but the High Court has discretion to use them for other purposes.
  • Tenure is typically 2-3 years.

Key differences:

  • Appointment process: Different authorities and procedures for Supreme Court and High Court appointments.
  • Eligibility: Supreme Court ad hoc judges must be sitting High Court judges, while High Court ad hoc judges can be retired judges.
  • Purpose: Supreme Court ad hoc judges address quorum issues, while High Court ad hoc judges help tackle case backlog.

Share this story

WhatsApp Channel Join Now