Article 224 of the Costitution of India with Case law
🔹 Article 224 of the Constitution of India – Appointment of Additional and Acting Judges in High Courts
📘 Text of Article 224
Article 224(1):
If the workload in any High Court increases temporarily or arrears of cases accumulate, the President may appoint duly qualified persons as Additional Judges for a term not exceeding two years, as recommended by the Chief Justice of the concerned High Court.
Article 224(2):
When the Chief Justice of a High Court is temporarily absent or unable to perform his duties, the President may appoint an Acting Chief Justice.
🔍 Key Points of Article 224
| Provision | Key Features |
|---|---|
| 224(1) | Appointment of Additional Judges to handle temporary increase in business |
| 224(2) | Appointment of Acting Chief Justice in case of absence/incapacity of Chief Justice |
| Appointing Authority | President of India, in consultation with Chief Justice of India and Governor |
| Maximum Tenure | Additional Judges: 2 years (renewable, but not automatic) |
| Purpose | To reduce case backlog and ensure uninterrupted administration of justice |
⚖️ Important Case Laws on Article 224
🔹 S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 149
Issue: Validity of extension/termination of Additional Judges.
Held:
Additional judges cannot claim reappointment as a right.
Article 224 provides discretionary power to the executive based on the High Court's workload.
Relevance: Explained the temporary and non-permanent nature of Additional Judges.
🔹 Krishna Swami v. Union of India, (1992) 4 SCC 605
Facts: Addressed issues of judicial appointments and acting appointments.
Held: Appointment of Acting Chief Justices must be done only under the conditions stated in Article 224(2).
Relevance: Reiterated limits of Presidential power and importance of consultation process.
🔹 Mahesh Chandra Gupta v. Union of India, (2009) 8 SCC 273
Issue: Judicial review of appointments under Article 224.
Held:
Limited judicial review possible in appointments under Article 224, primarily to check lack of eligibility or consultation.
Relevance: Strengthened transparency and accountability in judicial appointments.
🔹 Union of India v. Sankalchand Sheth, AIR 1977 SC 2328
Facts: Transfer of High Court Judges and their impact on acting appointments.
Held: Transfer and acting appointments must comply with constitutional safeguards and proper consultation.
Relevance: Emphasized the independence of judiciary in appointments.
🏛️ Recent Context
Several High Courts in India have appointed Additional Judges under Article 224(1) due to the rising number of pending cases.
Acting Chief Justices are frequently appointed under Article 224(2) when the permanent CJ retires or is elevated.
📝 Summary Table
| Clause | Subject | Details |
|---|---|---|
| 224(1) | Additional Judges | Appointed when case load increases, max term 2 years |
| 224(2) | Acting CJ | Appointed when Chief Justice is temporarily unable to perform duties |
| Authority | Appointment by President | In consultation with CJI and Governor |
| Nature | Temporary, Non-permanent | Not a matter of right to be reappointed |
✅ Conclusion
Article 224 provides a crucial mechanism to ensure that justice is not delayed due to an overburdened judiciary. While the powers under this Article are executive in nature, they are regulated through constitutional safeguards like mandatory consultation and judicial review in certain cases. The judiciary and executive must work together to ensure that appointments under Article 224 are timely, fair, and transparent.
RELATED Blog
0 comments