Chief Justice Dipankar Datta of the Bombay High Court on Monday recused from hearing a public interest litigation seeking to expedite process of appointment of judges..The plea filed by a legal professor, Dr. Sharmila Ghuge, prayed that till the sanctioned strength of 94 judges is reached in the High Court, retired high court judges could be brought in on ad-hoc basis..Division bench of CJ including Justice Madhav Jamdar recused from hearing the matter and directed that the matter be placed before a bench where the CJ was not a member..The plea filed through Dewani & Associates sought for the High Court to comply with the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in the judgment of Lok Prahari v. Union of India.The guidelines included:Pre-recommendation process (which may include a committee of sitting and newly retired judges),Methodology of appointment (which suggested dispensing with consultation with Intelligence Bureau or other agencies),Initiating the recommendation process 3 months in advance of the retirement,Have two to five ad-hoc judges per high court.Presently there are 62 judges in the High Court, 44 permanent and 18 additional judges.The vacancy is 34% in all, the plea stated.The petition also enlisted that the total number of pending civil cases is 2,31,401, criminal cases is 33,353, hence the total number of cases pending for more than 5 years is 2,64,754.Ghuge referred to the 124th Report of the Law Commission of India which also recommended that the adjudicatory experience of retired judges could be utilised to dispose of mounting arrears of cases.“Thus, the appointment of retired judges as ad-hoc judges was seen as a part of a multipronged attack on arrears and was strongly recommended”, the petition emphasized..In view of this, the plea prayed for the following reliefs:To expedite the process of appointment of judges as contemplated under Articles 217 and 224 of the Constitution;To direct considering and expediting the process of appointment of ad-hoc judges pending filling of the complete sanctioned strength in High Court.
Chief Justice Dipankar Datta of the Bombay High Court on Monday recused from hearing a public interest litigation seeking to expedite process of appointment of judges..The plea filed by a legal professor, Dr. Sharmila Ghuge, prayed that till the sanctioned strength of 94 judges is reached in the High Court, retired high court judges could be brought in on ad-hoc basis..Division bench of CJ including Justice Madhav Jamdar recused from hearing the matter and directed that the matter be placed before a bench where the CJ was not a member..The plea filed through Dewani & Associates sought for the High Court to comply with the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in the judgment of Lok Prahari v. Union of India.The guidelines included:Pre-recommendation process (which may include a committee of sitting and newly retired judges),Methodology of appointment (which suggested dispensing with consultation with Intelligence Bureau or other agencies),Initiating the recommendation process 3 months in advance of the retirement,Have two to five ad-hoc judges per high court.Presently there are 62 judges in the High Court, 44 permanent and 18 additional judges.The vacancy is 34% in all, the plea stated.The petition also enlisted that the total number of pending civil cases is 2,31,401, criminal cases is 33,353, hence the total number of cases pending for more than 5 years is 2,64,754.Ghuge referred to the 124th Report of the Law Commission of India which also recommended that the adjudicatory experience of retired judges could be utilised to dispose of mounting arrears of cases.“Thus, the appointment of retired judges as ad-hoc judges was seen as a part of a multipronged attack on arrears and was strongly recommended”, the petition emphasized..In view of this, the plea prayed for the following reliefs:To expedite the process of appointment of judges as contemplated under Articles 217 and 224 of the Constitution;To direct considering and expediting the process of appointment of ad-hoc judges pending filling of the complete sanctioned strength in High Court.
