The Allahabad High Court Bar Association (HCBA) has opposed the Supreme Court Collegium’s recommendation to appoint five retired judges as ad hoc judges of the Allahabad High Court, calling the move “inexplicable” and a matter of serious concern for the legal fraternity in Uttar Pradesh.

In a representation addressed to President Droupadi Murmu, the HCBA expressed strong objection to the proposal. Copies of the letter were also sent to Union Minister of State for Law and Justice Arjun Ram Meghwal and Chief Justice of India Surya Kant.

The association questioned the criteria adopted by the Collegium in selecting the five retired judges, stating that they appeared to have been chosen “out of the blue.” Even assuming that ad hoc appointments were necessary, the HCBA alleged that the Collegium had failed to identify the most suitable candidates.

According to the Bar body, preference should have been given to retired judges known for swift and effective disposal of cases. However, the letter claims that at least four of the five proposed appointees disposed of only a “minuscule” number of cases during their tenure as High Court judges.

Citing online searches, including data from legal database Manupatra, the HCBA asserted that some of the selected judges had low disposal rates over nearly two years on the Bench.

“It would be apt to point out that if appointments were to be made from the pool of retired Judges, recent retirees will be found to be having better and more effective disposal on merits than the chosen five. A search on the net shows minuscule number of cases having been decided by at least four of five judges during their tenure of almost two years as High Court judge… Several judges who have retired in between 2024-25 would be younger and more fit for effective disposal of cases,” the representation stated.

The HCBA further contended that the Collegium’s recommendation appears to contravene Article 224A of the Constitution, arguing that the power to appoint ad hoc judges lies with the Chief Justice of the High Court concerned, with the consent of the President, and not with the Supreme Court Collegium.

The association maintained that vacancies on the High Court Bench should instead be addressed through regular appointments, either by elevating eligible lawyers or appointing judicial officers. It argued that appointing retired judges to fill vacancies deprives deserving members of the Bar of an opportunity to occupy constitutional posts.

“Appointing five judges from a pool of retired judges to fill up any vacancies in the High Court at Allahabad merely deprives eligible persons of the legal fraternity from being appointed to a sensitive constitutional post while the post is filled by a retired High Court judge whose innings in the system is already complete,” the letter said.

The HCBA concluded by alleging that the process was undertaken without consultation with key stakeholders, particularly the Bar, and suggested that it was aimed at bypassing regular appointments to address judicial vacancies.

The representation has been signed by HCBA President and Senior Advocate Rakesh Pande and Honorary Secretary Advocate Akhilesh Kumar Sharma.