LOK PRAHARI THROUGH ITS GENERAL SECRETARY S.N. SHUKLA IAS (RETD.) versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

LOK PRAHARI THROUGH ITS GENERAL SECRETARY S.N. SHUKLA IAS (RETD.) versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

The Court held that recourse to Article 224A is necessary and appropriate to address the unprecedented backlog and persistent vacancies in High Courts; it issued binding guidelines for transparent invocation of Article 224A including trigger points, an embargo condition linked to recommendations for regular appointments, pre-recommendation panels, a prescribed methodology and timelines, limits on tenure and numbers, defined roles and emoluments (parity with sitting judges minus pension), and ordered a continuing mandamus with review and listing after four months for progress report by the Ministry of Justice.

Parties
Petitioner: LOK PRAHARI THROUGH ITS GENERAL SECRETARY S.N. SHUKLA IAS (RETD.); Respondent: UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
20 April 2021
Procedural Posture
Writ Petition (civil) No. 1236 of 2019 Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India / Judgment Issuing Guidelines for Invocation of Article 224 a and Continuing Mandamus; Matter Listed After Four Months for Progress Report
Outcome
Guidelines issued for invocation of Article 224A; continuing mandamus granted; matter listed after four months for report by the Ministry of Justice
Legal Topics
Article 224 a, Article 217, Article 224, Continuing Mandamus, High Court Vacancies and Backlog, Ad Hoc Judges, Memorandum of Procedure
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Judicial Administration Article 224 a Article 217 Article 224 Continuing Mandamus High Court Vacancies and Backlog +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 11
Sign in to unlock

Parties

LOK PRAHARI THROUGH ITS GENERAL SECRETARY S.N. SHUKLA IAS (RETD.)

Petitioner

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Writ Petition (civil) No. 1236 of 2019 Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India / Judgment Issuing Guidelines for Invocation of Article 224 a and Continuing Mandamus; Matter Listed After Four Months for Progress Report

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Article 224A may be invoked to appoint retired judges as ad hoc judges to address High Court backlog and vacancies
  2. 2 What checks, balances and guidelines should govern recourse to Article 224A
  3. 3 What procedural steps, tenure, number, role and emoluments should be provided to ad hoc judges

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that recourse to Article 224A is necessary and appropriate to address the unprecedented backlog and persistent vacancies in High Courts; it issued binding guidelines for transparent invocation of Article 224A including trigger points, an embargo condition linked to recommendations for regular appointments, pre-recommendation panels, a prescribed methodology and timelines, limits on tenure and numbers, defined roles and emoluments (parity with sitting judges minus pension), and ordered a continuing mandamus with review and listing after four months for progress report by the Ministry of Justice.

Court Disposition

Guidelines issued for invocation of Article 224A; continuing mandamus granted; matter listed after four months for report by the Ministry of Justice

Orders

  • Issue guidelines for activation of Article 224A including trigger points: vacancies more than 20% of sanctioned strength; category cases pending over five years; more than 10% of backlog over five years; rate of disposal lower than institution or mounting arrears
  • Embargo: Article 224A not to be resorted to if recommendations for regular appointments have not been made for more than 20% of regular vacancies