सं Samvidhan

The Constitution of India

Article 224A

Appointment of retired Judges at sittings of High Courts

Why this exists

High Courts in India often face heavy backlogs of pending cases with too few sitting judges. Article 224A gives a flexible, quick way to temporarily add experienced retired judges to the bench without going through the lengthier process of fresh judicial appointments, while keeping checks (President's consent, judge's own consent) to prevent misuse.

How courts read it

For decades this provision was rarely used. In 2021, in Lok Prahari v. Union of India, the Supreme Court noted the massive pendency of cases in High Courts and directed that Article 224A be actively invoked. It laid down a structured procedure — including how many ad hoc judges each High Court could have (roughly up to 20% of sanctioned strength), how they should be selected, and that they should mainly handle long-pending cases — to make the provision practically effective rather than dormant.

Common misconceptions
  • Myth: A retired judge can be ordered back to work under Article 224A.
    Fact: The Article's proviso makes clear the retired judge's consent is essential; they cannot be compelled to serve again.
  • Myth: A judge appointed under Article 224A becomes a full High Court judge again.
    Fact: The judge gets the same jurisdiction and powers while sitting, but is not otherwise deemed a regular High Court judge — for instance, this doesn't restore permanent tenure or seniority.
Article 224A — Appointment of retired Judges at sittings of High Courts · Samvidhan