All India Judicial Services (AIJS)

• Context (IE): President Murmu called for an “all-India judicial service (AIJS)” to recruit judges.

Present System of Recruitment of Judges in Lower Judiciary

• Under Article 233, all judges of the lower judiciary up to the level of district judges are selected through the state judicial services exam.
• The State Public Service Commissions (SPSC) and the concerned High Court conduct the selection process, since HCs exercise jurisdiction over the subordinate judiciary in the state.
• Panels of HC judges interview candidates after the exam (by SPSC) & select them for appointment.
• District judges are appointed by the State Governor in consultation with the High Court.
  • Under Article 234, the Governor appoints persons (except district judges) in a State’s judicial service following rules created by them (state), consulting the SPSC and the relevant High Court.

Drawbacks in Current system

• Urgent need to fill up the vacancies: In India there are about 21 judges per 10 lakh population even though the Law Commission had recommended that it should be at least 50.
  • In US or the UK judges to population ratio is 107 and 51 judges per million people, respectively.
• Huge pendency of cases & delayed justice.
• Subjectivity, corruption and nepotism in appointment.

What is AIJS?

• All India Judicial Service (AIJS) is a proposed judicial service in India.

Purpose

• To centralise the appointment of district judges for all states and additional district judges at the lower level of the judiciary.
• Proposing centralisation of recruitment of lower judiciary judges akin to UPSC, followed by their allocation to states.

Posts for which AIJS will be created

• Article 312 (2) of the IC states that the AIJS cannot include any post inferior to that of a district judge, as defined in Article 236.

Procedure for creation of AIJS

• No constitutional amendment will be required for the establishment of AIJS.
  • The 42^nd Constitutional amendment in 1976 amended Article 312 (1) empowering Parliament to make laws for the creation of one or more All-India Services, including an AIJS, common to the Union and the States.
• If the Rajya Sabha declares through a resolution, supported by at least two-thirds of its present and voting members (absolute majority), it is necessary or expedient to create a service in the “national interest.”
• Article 312 (3) states that the AIJS cannot include any post inferior to that of a district judge, as defined in Article 236.

How is AIJS different from the Present System?

Need for AIJS

Huge vacancy of judges and delay in recruitment

• The 116^th report (1986) of the Law Commission had recommended that India should have 50 judges per million population as against 10.50 judges (in 1986).
• Currently, the figure stands at 21 judges in terms of the sanctioned strength.
• Almost 5,000 posts remain vacant.

Pendency of cases

• In 2023, the total number of pending cases of all types and at all levels rose above 5 crores.
• National Court Management Systems projected that the number of cases being filed would reach 15 crore in 30 years, requiring 75,000 judges.

Efficient Judiciary

• It will ensure an efficient subordinate judiciary, to address structural issues such as
  • Varying pay,
  • Remuneration across states,
  • To fill vacancies faster, and
  • To ensure standard training across states.

Others

• Addressing subjectivity, corruption and Nepotism: The bottoms-up approach in the recruitment would also address issues like corruption and nepotism in the lower judiciary.
• State of art Training institutions: State institutes lack the capacity to allow such adjudication exposure to the selected candidates.

Merits of AIJS

• Accountability, transparency and objectivity in recruitment process: Open competitive exam would reduce discretion of selection panel in the recruitment process of judiciary.
• Representation to deprived sections: AIJS will improve the judiciary’s representative character by drafting in trained officers from deprived sections of society, especially women and SC/STs.
• Reduced Regional Bias: A national pool of judges could help mitigate regional biases in judicial decisions, promoting a more equitable and impartial justice system.
• Promoting National Integration: The AIJS could foster a sense of national unity and integration by bringing together judges from diverse backgrounds and regions.
• Improved Public Perception: A more diverse, merit-based, and efficient judiciary could enhance public trust and confidence in the Indian justice system.

De-merits & challenges of AIJS

• Dilutes separation of power: AIJS creation diminishes separation of power by granting Union government control over state judiciary recruitment, side-lining High Court authority.
• Against India’s Federal structure: Centralized recruitment undermines India’s federal structure, encroaching on states’ constitutional powers and contradicting principles of federalism.
• Impedes upon independence of judiciary: It would compromise Judicial Independence since another body would control appointments and integration, whereas in the judiciary, higher levels oversee and assess lower levels.
• Lack of consensus: Opinions on the proposal lack consensus, with only two High Courts supporting it and 13 opposing. Additionally, there are differences in views regarding eligibility, age, selection criteria, qualifications, and reservation.
• Opposition from advocate lobby: AIJS judges are more likely to become High Court judges compared to High Court advocates, causing opposition from advocate groups in various High Courts.
• Exclusion of state minorities and backward groups: State minorities and backward groups stand to lose reservation benefits if reservations are determined based on a centralized list.
  • Some communities which fall under the backward category in the state list may fall under the general category in the central list.
• Local Language issue: AIJS officers may struggle with local languages used in courts up to the District and Sessions Judge level, impeding effective dispensation of justice.
• Local laws and customs problem: AIJS overlooks the significant diversity in local laws, practices, and customs among different States.

Recommendations on AIJS

Law Commission and other recommendation

• The notion of a centralized judicial service was initially discussed in the Law Commission’s 1958 report on Judicial Administration Reforms.
• This idea resurfaced in the 1978 Law Commission Report, addressing case delays and backlogs in lower courts.
• In 2006, the 15^th Report by the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law, and Justice endorsed the concept of a nationwide judicial service and formulated a draft bill.

Supreme Court on AIJS

• In 1992, the Supreme Court’s ruling in ‘All India Judges’ Association (1) v. UOI’ directed the Centre to establish an AIJS.
• A 1993 review of the judgment allowed the Centre freedom to initiate action on the matter.
• In 2017, the Supreme Court independently addressed the appointment of district judges and suggested a “Central Selection Mechanism.”

Way forward

• Achieving stakeholder consensus is crucial.
• AIJS must address its flaws to become a potent judicial solution.
• NITI Aayog recommends:
  • AIJS cadre reporting to High Court Chief Justices for judicial independence.
  • Conducting regular, time-bound AIJS examinations.