Two Additional Judges Appointed to the Madras High Court

Why in the News?

• The President of India has appointed two judicial officers, Dharmalingam Lingeshwaran and Balathandayutham Karthikeyan, as Additional Judges of the Madras High Court after consultation with the Chief Justice of India (CJI).

About Additional Judges of High Courts

• Constitutional provision: Article 224(1) of the Constitution provides for the appointment of Additional Judges to High Courts.
• Purpose: They are appointed when the workload of a High Court temporarily increases or when a large number of pending cases need to be cleared.
• Tenure: An Additional Judge can be appointed for a period not exceeding two years.
• Age limit: An Additional Judge cannot continue in office after attaining the age of 62 years.
• Appointment process: The appointment is made by the President through the constitutional judicial appointment process, which involves consultation with the relevant constitutional authorities.
• Permanent vacancies: Additional appointments are intended to address temporary increases in workload or pending cases. The availability of a permanent vacancy is an important consideration in recommending appointments.

Other Constitutional Provisions Related to High Court Judges

• Article 216: Provides for the constitution of High Courts.
• Article 217: Deals with the appointment and conditions of service of High Court judges.
• Article 223: Provides for the appointment of an Acting Chief Justice of a High Court.
• Article 224(2): Provides for the appointment of Acting Judges when necessary.
• Article 224A: Allows the Chief Justice of a High Court, with the prior consent of the President, to request a retired High Court judge to sit and act as a judge.

Significance

• Additional Judges can help High Courts manage increasing workloads and reduce delays in the disposal of cases.
• Timely appointments strengthen access to justice and improve judicial efficiency.
• However, appointments alone cannot eliminate pendency; adequate judicial infrastructure, support staff and efficient case management are also necessary.

Appointment of High Court Judges and the Collegium System

• Constitutional Provision: Article 217 provides for the appointment of High Court judges by the President after consultation with the Chief Justice of India (CJI), the Governor of the concerned State and, in the case of judges other than the Chief Justice, the Chief Justice of the High Court.

Collegium System: 

• The system of judicial appointments and transfers has evolved through Supreme Court judgments rather than an Act of Parliament or an explicit constitutional provision.

Evolution of the Collegium System:

• First Judges Case (1981): Gave the executive primacy by holding that consultation did not mean concurrence.
• Second Judges Case (1993): Established the collegium system and gave primacy to the judiciary in appointments.
• Third Judges Case (1998): Clarified that the CJI must consult four senior-most Supreme Court judges for appointments to the Supreme Court.
• High Court Collegium: The Chief Justice of the concerned High Court, along with its two senior-most judges, initiates recommendations for appointments.
• NJAC (2014): The 99th Constitutional Amendment sought to replace the collegium system with the National Judicial Appointments Commission. In 2015, the Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional, citing the need to protect judicial independence.
• Major Criticisms: Lack of transparency, allegations of favouritism, judicial vacancies, inadequate representation of women and concerns over accountability.

Practice Question

Q. With reference to the appointment of High Court judges and the Collegium System in India, consider the following statements:

1. Article 224(1) permits the appointment of Additional Judges to High Courts for a period not exceeding two years to address a temporary increase in workload or the pendency of cases.
2. The First Judges Case (1981) established the Collegium System by holding that the opinion of the Chief Justice of India was binding on the President.
3. The Third Judges Case (1998) clarified that the CJI must consult four senior-most Supreme Court judges for appointments to the Supreme Court.
4. The National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC), introduced through the 99th Constitutional Amendment Act, was upheld by the Supreme Court in 2015.

Which of the statements given above are correct?

(a) 1 and 2 only 
(b) 1 and 3 only 
(c) 2 and 4 only 
(d) 1, 3 and 4 only

Answer: (b) 1 and 3 only

Explanation

• Statement 1 is correct. Article 224(1) provides for the appointment of Additional Judges for a period not exceeding two years to address a temporary increase in the business of a High Court or a backlog of cases.
• Statement 2 is incorrect. The First Judges Case (1981) gave primacy to the executive by holding that consultation did not mean concurrence. The Collegium System emerged through the Second Judges Case (1993).
• Statement 3 is correct. The Third Judges Case (1998) clarified that the CJI must consult a collegium comprising four senior-most Supreme Court judges for appointments to the Supreme Court.
• Statement 4 is incorrect. In 2015, the Supreme Court declared the NJAC unconstitutional on the ground that it threatened judicial independence.