Syllabus: GS 2 – Structure, Organization and Functioning of the Executive and the Judiciary, Appointment to various Constitutional Posts, Powers, Functions and Responsibilities of various Constitutional Bodies.
Context: On Constitution Day, the President of India proposed the establishment of an All-India Judicial Service with the aim of identifying and developing the talents of exceptional young individuals in the field of judiciary
Source: The Hindu | Editorial dated 29 November 2023
A Long Proposed All-India Judicial Service (AIJS)
- Introduction of AIJS: The AIJS initiative is a significant reform proposal focused on streamlining the recruitment process for judges, specifically targeting additional district judges and district judges across all states.
- UPSC Parallel: Drawing parallels with the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC), the AIJS envisions a centralized recruitment process. Successful candidates would undergo a central selection mechanism and then be allocated to various states, mirroring the UPSC’s cadre allocation system.
- Law Commission’s Early Advocacy: The concept of AIJS was initially introduced in the 14th report of the Law Commission in 1958. This early proposal emphasized the need for a statutory or constitutional body, akin to the UPSC, to conduct standardized and centralized examinations for the recruitment and training of judges.
- Resurgence in 1978: The idea of AIJS resurfaced in the Law Commission Report of 1978. This iteration of the proposal delved into concerns related to delays and case backlogs within the lower courts, reinforcing the need for a centralized recruitment approach.
- Supreme Court’s Directive: In a landmark decision in 1992 (All India Judges’ Association v. The Union of India), the Supreme Court directed the Centre to establish the All-India Judicial Service, marking a crucial step towards its implementation.
- Parliamentary Support and Draft Bill: In 2006, the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law, and Justice, through its 15th Report, not only endorsed the concept of a pan-Indian judicial service but also prepared a draft Bill, lending legislative support to the AIJS.
- Supreme Court’s 2017 Recommendation: In 2017, the Supreme Court suggested a “Central Selection Mechanism” for appointments of district judges, further emphasizing the need for a centralized approach in the recruitment process.
What is the Current Status?
- State Authority in Lower Judiciary Appointments:
- According to the Constitution, states have the authority to appoint judges to the lower judiciary.
- States currently conduct their own exams based on existing vacancies.
- Constitutional Provisions for Higher Judiciary Appointments:
- Articles 124 and 217 of the Constitution address the appointment of judges in the higher judiciary.
- These articles stipulate that judges are appointed by the President of India after consultation with the Chief Justice of India (CJI) and other judges.
- Evolution of Collegium System:
- The term “consultation” gained significance in the 1993 Second Judges case, leading to the establishment of the collegium system.
- Under this system, the CJI’s agreement, termed “concurrence,” became crucial for all judicial appointments.
- Incorporation of AIJS Provision:
- The 42nd amendment in 1976 introduced the provision of All-India Judicial Service (AIJS) in Article 312 of the Constitution.
- However, a legislative bill is still required to determine the specific details and scope of the AIJS.
- Article 312 on All-India Services:
- Article 312 of the Constitution, dealing with ‘All-India Services,’ allows Parliament to create services like the All-India Judicial Service.
- Creation of such a service requires a resolution by the Rajya Sabha, supported by a two-thirds majority, declaring it necessary or expedient in the national interest.
What is the necessity for an All-India Judicial Service?
- Enhancing Efficiency in Subordinate Judiciary:
- AIJS as a Catalyst for Structural Reforms.
- Addresses issues of varying pay, remuneration, and expedites vacancy filling.
- Acknowledges deficiencies in state-run training institutions.
- Aims to establish standardized and objective selection processes through AIJS.
- Ensures uniform training standards across different states.
- Optimizing Judges to Population Ratio:
- Currently stands at about 19 judges per 10 lakh population in India.
- The Law Commission recommended a minimum of 50 judges per 10 lakh people, highlighting a significant shortfall.
- Inclusive Representation and Talent Pipeline:
- AIJS as a Tool for Social Inclusion and Fresh Legal Talent.
- Aims to provide equal representation to marginalized sections.
- Creates a diverse pool of talented legal professionals for potential elevation.
- Accountability:
- Addressing Corruption and Nepotism in Lower Judiciary Recruitment.
- Introduces a merit-based, bottoms-up approach to enhance accountability.
- Mitigates issues related to corruption and nepotism.
- Empowering the Justice Delivery System:
- AIJS’s Role in Strengthening District and Subordinate Courts.
- Critical for improving the overall justice delivery system at the grassroots level.
- Targets reduction of case pendency and timely dispute resolution.
- Timely Solutions for Judicial Vacancies:
- AIJS as a Strategic Response to Vacancy Challenges.
- Addresses the urgent need to fill around 5400 judicial vacancies.
- Targets reducing the backlog of 2.78 crore pending cases.
- Elevating Recruitment Standards:
- Tackling Quality Concerns in Judicial Appointments Through AIJS.
- Responds to concerns about the declining quality of judicial officers.
- Aims to elevate recruitment standards through a robust selection process.
- Financial Incentives and Talent Magnet:
- AIJS as a Solution to Attracting Top Legal Talent.
- Recognizes challenges faced by state services in attracting top talent.
- Offers financial incentives to create a pool of high-caliber legal professionals.
Major Challenges
- Federalism Concerns:
- Criticism centers on AIJS potentially infringing on states’ powers.
- A centralized recruitment process is viewed as a challenge to the federal structure outlined in the Constitution.
- Language and Representation Apprehensions:
- Centralized recruitment may impact the use of regional languages in lower courts.
- Questions arise about how judges from one region can effectively handle cases in another, particularly considering language differences.
- Equality and Education Challenges:
- National exams could disadvantage less privileged candidates.
- Existing inconsistencies in law education standards may pose challenges for candidates from diverse backgrounds.
- State Opposition and Divergent Views:
- Several states, including West Bengal, oppose the creation of a central service for state judiciary.
- Divergent opinions on eligibility, age, selection criteria, qualification, and reservation.
- Bureaucratization Doubts:
- Centralizing recruitment doesn’t guarantee inherent efficiency.
- Concerns about the potential bureaucratization of the judicial selection process.
- High Court Administrative Control Dispute:
- Many high courts desire administrative control over the subordinate judiciary to remain with them.
- The Law Ministry notes conflicting views on this matter.
- Preserving Judicial Independence:
- The issue of preserving the judicial independence of District Judges in the context of AIJS.
- The potential impact on the separation of powers as a constitutional concept.
- Encroachment on State Powers:
- Centralized recruitment is seen as encroaching on states’ powers granted by the Constitution.
- Opposition is rooted in the constitutional concept of the separation of powers.
The Way forward
- Niti Aayog’s Path Forward:
- Advocates an all-India judicial services exam for maintaining high standards.
- Recommends the use of technology, particularly video-conferencing, to expedite justice and overcome logistical challenges.
- Addressing Case Backlog:
- Recognizes the pressing need for a recruitment system that efficiently appoints a large number of judges.
- Aims to expedite case resolution by ensuring an adequate number of qualified judges.
- Building Consensus:
- Acknowledges the importance of consensus-building before AIJS becomes part of the legislative framework.
- Highlights the need for decisive steps towards establishing AIJS with broad agreement.
- Correcting Diagnosis of Issues:
- Notes that AIJS has been proposed as a remedy for judicial vacancies, marginalization representation, and talent attraction.
- Points out that some of these issues may have been misdiagnosed.
References:
The Hindu
Indian kanoon
Practice Question: “Establishing the All-India Judicial Service (AIJS) would promote diversity within the judiciary, providing an opportunity for talented individuals from diverse backgrounds to become judges through a merit-based selection process” Comment.