With reference to the appointment of ad hoc judges, which of the following observations is/are correct?

The Constitution permits High Court Chief Justices to request retired judges as ad hoc judges with the President's consent.

Ad hoc judges can be appointed only if less than 20% of vacancy recommendations are pending.

The Supreme Court considers ad hoc appointments as an "active provision" with multiple recorded instances.

Select the correct option from the codes given below:

Question

The Constitution permits High Court Chief Justices to request retired judges as ad hoc judges with the President's consent. Correct: Article 224A of the Indian Constitution allows the Chief Justice of a High Court to request retired judges to act as ad hoc judges, with the President's prior consent.
Ad hoc judges can be appointed only if less than 20% of vacancy recommendations are pending. Correct: The Court ruled that ad hoc judges can only be appointed if recommendations for filling less than 20% of the vacancies have not been made.
The Supreme Court considers ad hoc appointments as an "active provision" with multiple recorded instances. Incorrect: The Supreme Court has noted only three recorded instances of ad hoc judges being appointed under Article 224A, deeming it a "dormant provision." These instances include: Justice Suraj Bhan (1972), Justice P. Venugopal (1982), Justice O.P. Srivastava (2007).

GKToday Admin · Accepted Answer

Only two

The Constitution permits High Court Chief Justices to request retired judges as ad hoc judges with the President's consent. Correct: Article 224A of the Indian Constitution allows the Chief Justice of a High Court to request retired judges to act as ad hoc judges, with the President's prior consent.
Ad hoc judges can be appointed only if less than 20% of vacancy recommendations are pending. Correct: The Court ruled that ad hoc judges can only be appointed if recommendations for filling less than 20% of the vacancies have not been made.
The Supreme Court considers ad hoc appointments as an "active provision" with multiple recorded instances. Incorrect: The Supreme Court has noted only three recorded instances of ad hoc judges being appointed under Article 224A, deeming it a "dormant provision." These instances include: Justice Suraj Bhan (1972), Justice P. Venugopal (1982), Justice O.P. Srivastava (2007).

Current Affairs