The news
On 29 October 2026, Chief Justice of India Surya Kant admitted from the bench that the Supreme Court's plan to bring retired High Court judges back as ad hoc judges — to clear the backlog — never took off, because Bar associations passed resolutions against it. No Chief Justice, he observed, can afford to annoy the Bar.
The bench also noted that, under new pension rules, some judicial officers are resigning mid-career to return to practice.
So : the Constitution allowed it (Article 224A), the Supreme Court ordered it (January 2025), the Government agreed — and still, not one ad hoc judge.
Sources : PTI via ThePrint, Bar & Bench, Orissa POST (29–30 Oct 2026)
My take : stop adding judges, start multiplying them
The ad hoc judge plan tried to solve the backlog by adding a few hundred more judges to the same old system — the same courtrooms, the same paper files, the same adjournments.
Even if the Bar had agreed, a few hundred judges could not dent crores of pending cases.
The real answer is not more judges but more output per judge. And that answer is already working in India — quietly, in traffic courts.
Proof that it works : the virtual traffic courts
Under the e-Courts project, India has set up 31 virtual courts for traffic challans. As of June 2026 :
- They had received 11.33 crore challans, with fines of over Rs 1,135 crore
- No litigant had to visit a court. No lawyer was needed. A handful of judges handled the lot
- One single virtual traffic court in Srinagar disposed of over 2 lakh challans in 14 months
The wider e-Courts system has also held 4.18 crore hearings by video conference, accepted 1.25 crore e-filed cases, and digitised over 753 crore pages of court records.
Phase III of the project (2023–2027, Rs 7,210 crore) already provides for extending online courts beyond traffic cases. It is time to use that provision — at scale.
What I wrote earlier
In 2021, I urged the engagement of retired judges under Article 224A to clear old cases.
In November 2022 ("E-Court Arrives") and again in March 2025, I argued that retired judges must be paired with e-Courts and digital platforms, so that they work many times faster than the old system ever could.
The Bar has now blocked the first half of that idea. Let us push ahead with the second half — which does not depend on anyone's resolution.
My proposal : thousands of e-Courts, supervised by junior judges
A large part of the backlog is made up of simple, high-volume, document-based cases, where facts are rarely in dispute and the law is settled. These do not need a full courtroom. They need a fair, fast, online process, with a judge in charge.
Cases that can go online first
Type of case | Why it suits an e-Court |
|---|---|
Cheque bounce (Section 138, NI Act) | Decided mostly on documents : the cheque, the bank memo, the notice |
Traffic and municipal challans | Already proven in 31 virtual courts |
Petty and compoundable offences | Most end in a plea or a fine |
Small consumer claims | Bills, receipts and messages tell most of the story |
Utility and tax-recovery disputes | Records are already digital |
Uncontested matters (succession certificates, simple probate) | Mainly verification of papers |
How one e-Court would work
- The complainant files online, uploading documents; court fee is paid digitally
- The system checks completeness, issues notice by SMS, e-mail and WhatsApp, and tracks delivery
- The respondent replies online — admits, contests, or offers to settle
- Admitted and settled cases go straight to a draft order
- Contested cases get a short video hearing, scheduled by the system — no adjournment without a recorded reason
- A junior judge reviews every file and signs every order. AI only summarises and drafts; the judge decides
The role of the junior judge
Today, a Civil Judge or Judicial Magistrate sits in one courtroom and hears perhaps 50–100 matters a day, most of them adjourned.
In the new model, each junior judge would supervise a cluster of e-Courts — say 10 to 20 — dealing only with :
- contested points that need a hearing
- orders that need signing
- exceptions flagged by the system
With about 25,000 subordinate judges in India, even if only 2,000 were assigned to supervise e-Courts, we could run 20,000 to 40,000 online courts — without a single new courtroom.
And retired judges could join too — working online, from home, as additional supervisors for the oldest cases, if the system later agrees.
Safeguards — so that speed does not kill fairness
- A human judge decides every case. AI drafts and sorts; it never signs
- Right to a physical hearing for anyone who asks for it, with reasons
- e-Sewa Kendras at every court complex for those without a smartphone or Internet
- Free appeal to a regular court against any e-Court order
- Data privacy under the DPDP Act for all uploaded documents
- Clear the pipe, not just the tank — Online systems can also create new cases faster than they clear them (e-challans already pile up in courts). So every e-Court must track cases filed vs cases disposed, every month
What about the Bar ?
The Bar need not see this as a threat.
- Lawyers can appear by video from their offices, and handle more clients in a day
- The complex, contested cases — where good advocacy matters most — will move faster once the courts are freed from routine files
- Young lawyers can find new work as e-filing and mediation facilitators
And unlike the ad hoc judge plan, this proposal needs no change in anyone's seniority or elevation.
My suggestions to the Supreme Court and the Law Ministry
- Pilot in 5 states within six months, starting with cheque-bounce cases, which clog many magistrate courts
- Notify rules under e-Courts Phase III for online courts beyond traffic, with clear timelines for each step
- Train junior judges as e-Court supervisors at the National and State Judicial Academies
- Publish a live dashboard : e-Courts running, cases filed, disposed, average days to disposal, appeals filed
- Fix judicial pensions, so that the very judges we need for this model do not leave mid-career
Closing thought
The Bar could block a few hundred retired judges with a few resolutions.
But it cannot — and should not — block technology that lets every judge do the work of ten.
Our virtual traffic courts have already handled crores of cases without a single crowded courtroom. Let us give the same chance to the lakhs of litigants still waiting in the queue.
Dear CJI Surya Kantji : you could not risk annoying the Bar. But with e-Courts, you won't need to.
With regards,
Hemen Parekh
www.HemenParekh.ai / www.IndiaAGI.ai / www.YourContentCreator.in
30 October 2026
Related reading : SC orders reappointment of retired HC judge (9 March 2025) · E-Court Arrives (Nov 2022)
News and data : ThePrint (PTI) · Bar & Bench · e-Courts factsheet, Aug 2026 · Srinagar virtual court · e-Courts Phase III
No comments:
Post a Comment