“Despite the constitutional provisions, the appointment of ad-hoc judges has remained largely underutilized”.Analyze the reasons for this underutilization and suggest reforms to enhance judicial capacity through this mechanism.
Summary
> **Topic:** Structure, organization and functioning of the Executive and the Judiciary **Topic:** Structure, organization and functioning of the Executive and the Judiciary **Q4. ****“Despite the constitutional provisions, the appointment of ad-hoc judges has remained largely underutilized”.Analyze the reasons for this underutilization and suggest reforms to enhance judicial capacity through this mechanism. (15 M)** *Difficulty Level: Medium* *Reference: IE* > **Why the question:** The Supr
Exam Brief
GS-2The Supreme Court has raised concerns about the underutilization of ad-hoc judges. This impacts judicial efficiency and backlog reduction, crucial for UPSC GS-2.
Key Facts
- Article 224A allows for appointment of ad-hoc judges in High Courts.
- The Supreme Court suggested ad-hoc appointments to address pending criminal cases.
- Underutilization is due to procedural complexities and judicial reluctance.
Prelims — What UPSC Might Ask
- Article related to appointment of ad-hoc judges in High Courts.
- Process of appointing ad-hoc judges.
This article hasn't been rewritten for exam prep yet. Showing original content.
Source Article Content
Topic: Structure, organization and functioning of the Executive and the Judiciary Topic: Structure, organization and functioning of the Executive and the Judiciary
**Q4. ****“Despite the constitutional provisions, the appointment of ad-hoc judges has remained largely underutilized”.Analyze the reasons for this underutilization and suggest reforms to enhance judicial capacity through this mechanism. (15 M)**
Difficulty Level: Medium
Reference: IE
Why the question: The Supreme Court suggested temporarily appointing retired judges on an ad hoc (as required) basis to address the growing backlog of pending criminal cases before several High Courts. Key demand of the question: The question requires an analysis of why the provision under Article 224A for appointing ad-hoc judges has not been effectively utilized, followed by practical reforms to strengthen judicial capacity through this mechanism. Structure of the Answer: Introduction: Introduce the importance of judicial efficiency in delivering timely justice and highlight the potential of Article 224A in addressing judicial backlog. Body: Underutilization of ad-hoc appointments: Discuss the factors such as procedural complexities, judicial reluctance, and financial constraints that have led to its limited implementation. Reasons for underutilization: Analyze challenges related to policy gaps, bureaucratic hurdles, and reluctance from key stakeholders. Reforms to enhance judicial capacity: Suggest measures such as streamlining appointment procedures, financial incentives, fixed tenure, and institutional support to ensure optimal utilization. Conclusion: Conclude by emphasizing the need for a balanced approach to judicial reforms that ensures efficient utilization of existing legal provisions while maintaining judicial independence and quality. Why the question: The Supreme Court suggested temporarily appointing retired judges on an ad hoc (as required) basis to address the growing backlog of pending criminal cases before several High Courts.
Key demand of the question: The question requires an analysis of why the provision under Article 224A for appointing ad-hoc judges has not been effectively utilized, followed by practical reforms to strengthen judicial capacity through this mechanism.
Structure of the Answer:
Introduction: Introduce the importance of judicial efficiency in delivering timely justice and highlight the potential of Article 224A in addressing judicial backlog.
• Underutilization of ad-hoc appointments: Discuss the factors such as procedural complexities, judicial reluctance, and financial constraints that have led to its limited implementation. • Reasons for underutilization: Analyze challenges related to policy gaps, bureaucratic hurdles, and reluctance from key stakeholders. • Reforms to enhance judicial capacity: Suggest measures such as streamlining appointment procedures, financial incentives, fixed tenure, and institutional support to ensure optimal utilization. Conclusion: Conclude by emphasizing the need for a balanced approach to judicial reforms that ensures efficient utilization of existing legal provisions while maintaining judicial independence and quality.