CJI Surya Kant: Bar bodies blocked Article 224A judge appointments
- CJI Surya Kant stated bar associations blocked the revival of ad hoc judge appointments.
- The initiative was originally conceived under former CJI SA Bobde.
- Justice Joymalya Bagchi noted the failed move negatively impacted retired judges.
- Article 224A allows for the appointment of retired judges with consent.
- Bombay High Court ruled an administrative directive regarding trustee appointments was invalid.
The Times of India reported on 29 October that bar bodies foiled the plan to rope in ex-judges.
CJI Surya Kant remarked, "No chief justice can risk annoying the bar". He noted that while on a bench headed by former CJI SA Bobde, they had virtually revived the practice.
Failed initiative to revive ad hoc judge appointments
It failed after bar associations passed resolutions against the move.
Under Article 224A of the Constitution, the Chief Justice of a High Court is permitted, with the President's approval, to invite a retired judge to serve as a judge of that High Court.
Retired judges faced negative impacts from the failed policy
Justice Joymalya Bagchi observed that the failed initiative negatively impacted retired judges who had avoided private work expecting to be appointed as ad hoc judges.
Justice Bagchi stated, "The unfortunate part was that the judges who retired and had offered their services were not taking private assignments, with a legitimate expectation that they would be appointed".
Justice Bagchi further recounted an encounter with a female judge in the United States who emphasized the possibility of employing judicial experience long after retirement age.
Judicial officers express concerns over pension limitations
CJI Surya Kant shared an interaction with a judicial officer who resigned and returned to legal practice during a hearing on the seniority of judicial officers in Rajasthan. The bench, which also included Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, heard the officer express deep concern regarding new pension rules.
These rules limit retirement benefits to ₹25,000 per month. The officer asked the bench, "How do you think I am going to survive?".
Bombay High Court quashes unauthorized administrative directive
An administrative order that had suspended the appointment of trustees for the Shree Saptashrung Nivasini Devi Trust in Nashik was set aside by the Bombay High Court. Justices GS Kulkarni and Neela Gokhale, sitting as a Division Bench, determined that special officer Anju Shende acted without legal power and improperly invoked the Chief Justice's name.
The dispute originated on March 14, 2026, upon Shende emailing the Nashik Principal District and Sessions Judge with instructions to revoke the five trustees appointed on March 12, 2026. It was alleged by Shende that the order was issued based on verbal directions from then Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar concerning a recent state ordinance.
Legal representatives for the district judge and the High Court administration admitted that the Chief Justice never received a formal proposal concerning these appointments. The bench stated that the communication lacked support from registry records and warned that working in the secretariat provides no immunity for misconduct.
The court ruled that Shende acted with "gross impropriety". Consequently, the bench quashed the communication and the Nashik District Judge’s stay order in the case of Vishnu Trimbak Warungase & Ors v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Legal representatives in the matter included Senior Advocate AY Sakhare for the petitioners, Advocate General Milind Sathe for the State, and Senior Advocate Sharan Jagtiani for the respondents.
Frequently Asked Questions
Add NewsPulse Time as a preferred source on Google