Question

The above excerpt has been taken from which of the following judgments, where the Supreme Court of India sought to activate a dormant provision of the Constitution of India for the appointment of ad hoc Judges to deal with the unprecedented backlog of cases pending before the High Courts ?

• A. Devendra Kumar Saxena v. Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), 2021 SCC OnLine SC 330.
• B. M.K. Ranjitsinh v. Union of India, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 326.
• C. Lok Prahari through its General Secretary S.N. Shukla, IAS (Retd.) v. Union of India, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 333.
• D. Justice V. Eswaraiah (Retd.) v. Union of India, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 310.
• A. Article 224A
• B. Article 217
• C. Article 224
• D. Article 217A
• A. 3:2
• B. 4:1
• C. 6:1
• D. 4:3
• A. Ashok Tanwar v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2005) 2 SCC 104.
• B. Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association v. Union of India, (2016) 5 SCC 1.
• C. Union of India v. Sankal Chand and Himatlal Sheth, (1977) 4 SCC 193.
• D. Krishan Gopal v. Shri Prakash Chandra, (1974) 1 SCC 128.
• A. One Hundred Eighty Eighth Report on proposals for Constitution of Hi-Tech Fast-Track Commercial Divisions in High Courts (2003).
• B. Fourteenth Report on Reforms in Judicial Administration (1958).
• C. One Twentieth Report on Manpower Planning in Judiciary: A Blueprint (1987)
• D. One Hundred Eighteenth Report on Method of Appointments to Subordinate Courts/ Subordinate Judiciary (1986).
• A. Article 124A of the Constitution of India provides for the establishment of the collegium system.
• B. The Judicial Appointments (Collegium System) Act, 1999 provides for the establishment of the collegium system.
• C. The Constitution of India does not provide for the establishment of the collegium system.
• D. The National Judicial Appointments Commission supplements the collegium system for appointment of judges

Answer 1

The Correct Option is C

The question pertains to identifying the specific judgment where the Supreme Court of India aimed to utilize a dormant provision for appointing ad hoc Judges to address the massive backlog of cases in the High Courts. The correct answer to this question is connected to a context wherein the appointment system relies significantly on the Collegium system. This involves recommendations from the four senior-most judges and is presided over by the Chief Justice. The process includes wide consultations to identify the suitable talent pool for appointments. Notably, a critical situation is depicted, highlighting a substantial backlog primarily in the High Courts of Allahabad, Punjab & Haryana, Madras, Bombay, and Rajasthan. The Madras High Court, with a significant number of pending cases, reinforces the necessity for temporary appointments of experienced judges.

Therefore, the judgment referred to in this context is:

Lok Prahari through its General Secretary S.N. Shukla, IAS (Retd.) v. Union of India, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 333.

Answer 2

The question asks which case revived a dormant constitutional provision to appoint ad hoc Judges for High Court backlogs. Matching each case name to its actual subject matter narrows this down.

1. Devendra Kumar Saxena v. CBI, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 330: this case concerns matters relating to the Central Bureau of Investigation, not the appointment of ad hoc High Court Judges.
2. M.K. Ranjitsinh v. Union of India, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 326: this case relates to wildlife and environmental protection, unconnected to judicial appointments.
3. Lok Prahari through its General Secretary S.N. Shukla, IAS (Retd.) v. Union of India, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 333: this is the public interest litigation in which the Supreme Court specifically activated the dormant constitutional mechanism for appointing retired judges as ad hoc Judges in the High Courts to tackle the pendency crisis described in the passage, directly matching the question.
4. Justice V. Eswaraiah (Retd.) v. Union of India, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 310: this case involves a different individual dispute and is not the source of the ad hoc Judges ruling described here.

Only the Lok Prahari case matches both the subject, reviving a dormant provision for ad hoc Judges, and the backlog context described in the passage.

Therefore, the correct answer is Lok Prahari through its General Secretary S.N. Shukla, IAS (Retd.) v. Union of India, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 333.

Answer 3

The Supreme Court of India has invoked Article 224A of the Constitution for the appointment of ad hoc Judges in High Courts to address the backlog of cases. Article 224A allows the Chief Justice of a High Court, with the previous consent of the President, to request retired Judges to serve temporarily as needed. This provision helps ensure that the High Courts can handle their caseload efficiently, especially when facing high arrears of pending cases. It is important for the efficient functioning of the judiciary, and the call for ad hoc Judges strengthens the system by bringing in experienced judges to manage the growing number of cases, thereby supporting the judicial process effectively.

To summarize, the use of Article 224A provides a mechanism for High Courts to temporarily enhance their capacity by leveraging the experience of retired judges. This addresses the issue of delayed justice due to the current constraint of full-time judicial vacancies occuring in the High Courts.

Answer 4

The question asks which constitutional article, though rarely used, gives the Supreme Court a basis to appoint ad hoc Judges to High Courts. Checking each article's actual subject matter answers this.

1. Article 224A: this provision empowers the Chief Justice of a High Court, with the previous consent of the President, to request a retired Judge of that High Court or another High Court to sit and act as a Judge of that High Court. This is precisely the ad hoc Judge mechanism described in the passage, and it had remained largely unused before being revived for the backlog crisis.
2. Article 217: this article deals with the appointment and conditions of office of regular, sitting High Court Judges, the ordinary appointment process, not the ad hoc mechanism.
3. Article 224: this deals with the appointment of additional and acting Judges to a High Court, a related but distinct category from ad hoc retired Judges.
4. Article 217A: not a provision dealing with ad hoc Judges, it is a distractor option with no independent bearing on this appointment mechanism.

Article 224A specifically authorises calling retired Judges back into service as ad hoc Judges, matching the passage's description exactly.

Hence, the correct answer is Article 224A.

Answer 5

In the Supreme Court case of "Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association v. Union of India, (2016) 5 SCC 1," the Supreme Court of India restored the collegium system of appointment of judges by declaring the National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2014 as ultra vires the Constitution of India. The judgment was delivered by a majority decision. The question asks for the specific majority ratio by which this decision was reached.

Given the following options: 3:2, 4:1, 6:1, and 4:3, the correct answer is 4:1. This indicates that the decision to restore the collegium system was supported by four of the judges in favor, with one judge dissenting.

Answer 6

The question asks for the exact majority by which the five-judge Constitution Bench struck down the National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2014 and restored the collegium system in the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association case. Checking the composition of that bench narrows the options.

1. 3:2: a 3:2 split would mean the decision was closely contested with two dissents, that is not how this particular bench divided.
2. 4:1: this matches the actual composition of the five-judge bench, four Judges held the NJAC Act unconstitutional and restored the collegium system, while one Judge dissented, defending the NJAC Act.
3. 6:1: this option assumes a seven-judge bench, which is more Judges than actually sat on this case.
4. 4:3: this would imply a seven-judge bench split narrowly, which again does not match the five-judge composition of this bench.

The bench was five Judges strong, with four in the majority and one dissenting.

Therefore, the correct answer is 4:1.

Answer 7

In the legal case of Union of India v. Sankal Chand and Himatlal Sheth, (1977) 4 SCC 193, the Supreme Court of India emphasized the necessity of obtaining the consent of a retired judge before appointing them as an ad hoc judge. This decision is grounded in the larger context of the judicial appointment process in India, which is guided by the Constitution and the practices as elucidated in the Collegium system.

Within this framework, the Chief Justice, alongside the Collegium, identifies potential candidates for judicial appointments through a comprehensive consultation process. This includes suggestions from diverse sources like sitting judges, retired judges, and notable lawyers, ensuring a thorough and unbiased selection aimed at maintaining the integrity and effectiveness of the judiciary.

The Court acknowledged that although existing vacancies might be few, exceptional circumstances may warrant the need for ad hoc judges, especially in cases of substantial backlog as noted in certain High Courts. However, the decision to appoint a retired judge must understandably respect their willingness and availability, hence the prerequisite of obtaining their consent.

Answer 8

The question asks which case established that a retired Judge's own consent is a pre-requisite before appointing them as an ad hoc Judge. Checking the subject matter of each cited case identifies the right one.

1. Ashok Tanwar v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2005) 2 SCC 104: this case does not concern the ad hoc Judge consent requirement, it addresses a different subject.
2. Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India, (2016) 5 SCC 1: this is the NJAC case dealing with the collegium system for regular judicial appointments, not the consent requirement for ad hoc retired Judges.
3. Union of India v. Sankal Chand and Himatlal Sheth, (1977) 4 SCC 193: this case, dealing with judicial independence and the process around a Judge's assignment, is the one associated with the principle that a retired Judge cannot be pressed into ad hoc service without their own consent, matching the question.
4. Krishan Gopal v. Shri Prakash Chandra, (1974) 1 SCC 128: this case addresses an unrelated subject, not the ad hoc Judge consent requirement.

The consent principle for appointing a retired Judge as an ad hoc Judge traces to the Sankal Chand and Himatlal Sheth ruling.

Therefore, the correct answer is Union of India v. Sankal Chand and Himatlal Sheth, (1977) 4 SCC 193.

Answer 9

The question pertains to identifying the specific report by the Law Commission of India that recommended appointing retired judges as ad-hoc judges to address backlogs in High Courts. The context provided highlights the importance of filling judicial vacancies efficiently to manage the substantial case backlog in several High Courts, despite some courts having fewer vacancies.

Among the given options, the report titled "One Hundred Eighty Eighth Report on proposals for Constitution of Hi-Tech Fast-Track Commercial Divisions in High Courts (2003)" is the correct one. This report specifically discusses measures to expedite case resolution, including the appointment of ad-hoc judges.

Understanding these steps is crucial:

1. The Law Commission of India regularly evaluates the judicial system, proposing reforms to enhance efficiency.
2. In 2003, the 188th Report suggested creating Hi-Tech Fast-Track Divisions and advocated for appointing retired judges temporarily to clear case backlogs.
3. Such recommendations aim to leverage experienced judges’ expertise without interfering with the permanent judicial appointments process, thereby balancing the caseload effectively.

Therefore, in the context of the judicial system's needs and the ongoing backlog issues, the 188th Report from 2003 is pivotal for proposing innovative strategies, such as using retired judges as ad-hoc judges to alleviate the pressure on High Courts.

Answer 10

The question asks which Law Commission of India report specifically recommended appointing retired Judges as ad-hoc Judges to clear High Court backlogs. Reviewing the stated focus of each report narrows this down.

1. 188th Report on proposals for Constitution of Hi-Tech Fast-Track Commercial Divisions in High Courts (2003): this report, addressing measures to speed up case disposal including the use of ad-hoc appointments alongside fast-track mechanisms, is the one tied to the ad-hoc Judges recommendation referenced in the question.
2. 14th Report on Reforms in Judicial Administration (1958): an early, broad report on judicial administration reforms generally, not specifically focused on ad-hoc Judge appointments for backlog clearance.
3. 120th Report on Manpower Planning in Judiciary: A Blueprint (1987): this report addresses judicial manpower planning as a broader staffing exercise, distinct from the specific ad-hoc Judges recommendation.
4. 118th Report on Method of Appointments to Subordinate Courts/Subordinate Judiciary (1986): this report is about appointments to the subordinate judiciary, not High Court ad-hoc Judges.

Among the four, the 188th Report is the one connected to using ad-hoc appointments as a case-clearance measure in the High Courts.

Hence, the correct answer is One Hundred Eighty Eighth Report on proposals for Constitution of Hi-Tech Fast-Track Commercial Divisions in High Courts (2003).

Answer 11

The Collegium system for the appointment of judges in India does not have its origins in a specific provision of the Constitution of India or any statute. Instead, it is a judicial innovation based on a series of Supreme Court judgments.

The correct statement is: The Constitution of India does not provide for the establishment of the collegium system.

Explanation:

• The Collegium system was established through the landmark judgments of the Supreme Court commonly referred to as the "Three Judges Cases".
• The First Judges Case (1981) led to a reform of the consultation process in the appointment of judges, emphasizing the primacy of executive decision in judicial appointments.
• The Second Judges Case (1993) changed the scenario, introducing the Collegium system, giving the Chief Justice of India and a panel of senior judges the final say in judicial appointments, thus reducing executive influence.
• The Third Judges Case (1998) further clarified the workings of the system, outlining that the Chief Justice of India should consult a Collegium of four senior-most judges of the Supreme Court.
• Therefore, the Collegium system emerged as a result of judicial precedent rather than constitutional or legislative provisions.

In conclusion, the judiciary, through interpretation and clarification of its own authority and procedures, developed the Collegium system, independent of explicit constitutional backing.

Answer 12

This question asks which statement correctly describes how the collegium system for judicial appointments came into being. The safest way to answer is to test each option against what actually happened, rather than simply recalling the three judges cases narrative.

1. Option A: Article 124A does not create the collegium system. Article 124A was inserted by the Ninety-Ninth Constitutional Amendment to set up the National Judicial Appointments Commission, a body meant to replace the collegium, not the collegium itself. So this option confuses the collegium with a different, later mechanism and is incorrect.
2. Option B: There is no statute called the Judicial Appointments (Collegium System) Act, 1999. The collegium was never created by Parliament through legislation; it exists purely because of how the Supreme Court read Articles 124 and 217 in its own judgments. An option that invents a non-existent Act cannot be correct.
3. Option C: This matches the actual history. The word collegium appears nowhere in the Constitution. The system was built entirely by the Supreme Court through the First, Second and Third Judges Cases, which reinterpreted the word consultation in Articles 124 and 217 to mean concurrence of the judiciary. Since no constitutional article names or establishes the collegium, this statement holds up.
4. Option D: The National Judicial Appointments Commission did not supplement the collegium; it was designed to replace it entirely. When the Supreme Court struck it down along with the Ninety-Ninth Amendment in 2015 as violative of the basic structure, the collegium was revived as the sole appointment mechanism. The two systems never operated side by side, so this option misstates the relationship.

Testing each option this way leaves only one statement standing: the collegium was never written into the Constitution but was instead judicially evolved.

Therefore, the correct answer is the Constitution of India does not provide for the establishment of the collegium system.