सं Samvidhan

The Constitution of India

Article 224

Appointment of additional and acting Judges

Why this exists

High Courts often face backlogs or temporary staff shortages. The Constitution framers wanted a flexible mechanism to add judicial capacity quickly without going through the full process of permanent appointments, while still keeping these appointments temporary and time-bound to preserve judicial independence and orderly administration.

How courts read it

In cases like S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981, the 'First Judges Case'), the Supreme Court examined how additional judges are appointed and whether short-term appointments could be misused to pressure judges into favorable rulings for reappointment. Later judgments, especially the Second and Third Judges Cases, reinforced that appointments and extensions of additional judges must follow due process and consultation with the judiciary, to prevent executive overreach.

Common misconceptions
  • Myth: Additional judges are less powerful or authoritative than permanent judges.
    Fact: While their appointment is temporary, additional judges have the same judicial powers and authority as permanent judges during their tenure.
  • Myth: Additional judges can be reappointed indefinitely without scrutiny.
    Fact: Reappointment requires following due process, and courts have emphasized that decisions on continuation must not be influenced by a judge's rulings, to protect judicial independence.