Supreme Court Collegium Approves Appointment of Five Ad Hoc Judges to Allahabad High Court Under Article 224A

Lentis Legalis
New Delhi | February 3, 2026

The Supreme Court Collegium has approved the appointment of five retired judges as ad hoc judges of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad for a period of two years, invoking Article 224A of the Constitution of India.

The decision was taken in the Collegium meeting held on 3rd February, 2026, and was communicated through a resolution titled “Statement dated 3rd February reg. appointment of ad hoc Judges in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.”

As per the Collegium resolution, the following retired judges have been approved for appointment as ad hoc judges:

1. Justice Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan
2. Justice Mohd. Aslam
3. Justice Syed Aftab Husain Rizvi
4. Justice Renu Agarwal
5. Justice Jyotsna Sharma

These appointments are to be made in terms of Article 224A of the Constitution, subject to the consent of the appointees and approval of the President of India.

Article 224A of the Constitution of India empowers the Chief Justice of a High Court, with the prior consent of the President, to request a retired judge of that or any other High Court to sit and act as a judge of the High Court.

While such ad hoc judges enjoy the same jurisdiction, powers, and privileges as regular judges, they are not deemed to be permanent judges of the High Court. Their allowances are determined by a Presidential order, and their appointment is contingent upon their consent.

The provision gained renewed significance following the Supreme Court’s directions in April 2021, issued to address the unprecedented backlog of cases pending before High Courts across the country.

In Lok Prahari v. Union of India (2021), the Supreme Court invoked Article 224A and laid down guidelines for appointing ad hoc judges, emphasizing that such appointments should ordinarily be made after genuine efforts to fill regular judicial vacancies.

The Court permitted the use of Article 224A where:

• Vacancies exceeded 20% of sanctioned strength
• Certain categories of cases were pending for over five years
• More than 10% of total pending cases were older than five years
• The disposal rate was lower than the rate of fresh filings

In a later development, the Supreme Court relaxed several conditions imposed in its 2021 ruling, acknowledging the gravity of pendency, particularly in criminal cases.

A special bench comprising Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justices B.R. Gavai and Surya Kant ruled that:

• Chief Justices of High Courts may recommend retired judges for ad hoc appointments
• Each High Court may appoint 2 to 5 ad hoc judges, subject to a ceiling of 10% of the sanctioned strength
• Ad hoc judges shall hear criminal appeals, sitting in benches headed by a serving High Court judge

The Supreme Court also kept in abeyance certain restrictive conditions laid down earlier, including:

• The requirement that vacancies must exceed 20% before ad hoc appointments
• The restriction preventing ad hoc judges from sitting on regular benches

The Court declined to prescribe a fixed timeline for appointments but stressed that the process should begin without delay.

The ruling was prompted by alarming pendency figures, with over 60 lakh cases pending in High Courts nationwide, including nearly 20 lakh criminal appeals.

T