The Indian Constitution provides for the appointment of Ad hoc judges in the

The Constitution keeps a court fully staffed during a temporary judge shortage through court-specific "ad hoc" or "additional/acting" judge provisions — each body (Supreme Court, High Court) has its own separate article, so the mechanism named "ad hoc judges" is not interchangeable across courts.

1. Article 127 of the Constitution, headed "Appointment of ad hoc Judges", applies specifically to the Supreme Court.

2. It is triggered when, at any time, a quorum of sitting Supreme Court judges is not available to hold or continue a session.

3. The Chief Justice of India, with the previous consent of the President and after consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court concerned, may then request in writing the attendance of a High Court judge who is duly qualified for appointment as a Supreme Court judge under Article 124(3).

4. That judge sits and acts as an ad hoc judge of the Supreme Court for the required period, carrying the jurisdiction, powers, and privileges of a Supreme Court judge.

• A High Court fills a similar gap under a differently named provision, Article 224 (appointment of additional and acting judges), not the "ad hoc judges" label used for the Supreme Court.

• District and Sessions Courts are staffed through Articles 233–235, by the Governor in consultation with the High Court — an ordinary appointment process, not an "ad hoc" constitutional mechanism.

• Parliament's membership is filled by election and nomination under Part V of the Constitution and has no judicial "ad hoc judges" provision at all.

So the constitutional "ad hoc judges" provision (Article 127) applies to the Supreme Court — the correct completion is Supreme Court.