All India Judiciary Services: Is it right time to implement?

President Droupadi Murmu has recently voiced support for the implementation of the All India Judicial Service (AIJS) as a means to promote diversity within the judiciary and ensure better representation of marginalized social groups.

The President of India's proposal to establish an All-India Judicial Service (AIJS) in order to promote diversity within the judiciary by allowing talented individuals from diverse backgrounds to become judges through a merit-based process has reignited the debate on whether a national recruitment system for district judges is desirable.

Time to Think for All India Judiciary Services

This idea has been previously suggested and discussed, and has been a topic of official policy discussions within the Union government for several years.

However, as disclosed by the Union Law Minister in the Rajya Sabha last year, there is no consensus on this proposal. Out of the 15 High Courts, only two have expressed support for the idea, while the remaining 13 have opposed it.

It is important to recognize that the AIJS may not be the ultimate solution it is perceived to be. The current system of recruiting district judges through the respective High Courts, and other subordinate judicial officers through public service commissions, provides a more conducive environment for ensuring diversity. This system allows for both reservation and a comprehensive understanding of local practices and conditions.

Current System of Appoitment:

• The current system involves the delegation of authority to states through Articles 233 and 234, which allows them to oversee the appointment of district judges. This responsibility is managed by State Public Service Commissions and High Courts, as the High Courts have jurisdiction over the subordinate judiciary within the state. In this process, panels of High Court judges conduct interviews with candidates after they have taken the exam, and subsequently select individuals for appointment.

• Article 233 specifically addresses the appointment of district judges, stating that the Governor of the State, in consultation with the High Court exercising jurisdiction over that State, is responsible for appointing and overseeing the posting and promotion of district judges. On the other hand, Article 234 deals with the recruitment of individuals, other than district judges, to the judicial service.

• It is important to note that all judges within the lower judiciary, up to the level of district judges, are selected through the Provincial Civil Services (Judicial) exam. This exam is commonly known as the judicial services exam or PCS (J).

All india Judicial Services (AIJS) and its Benefits:

• AIJS is a proposed centralized recruitment system for additional district judges and district judges at the state level.

• The objective of AIJS is to streamline the recruitment process for judges, similar to the model followed by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC), by assigning successful candidates to different states.

• The implementation of AIJS would guarantee a standardized and exceptional level of judge selection and training, thereby enhancing the overall quality and efficiency of the judicial system.

• By addressing the current shortage of judges in lower courts, which amounts to approximately 5,400 vacant positions nationwide, AIJS would effectively reduce the backlog of cases, which currently stands at 2.78 crore, primarily caused by the delay in conducting regular exams by states.

• AIJS would promote inclusivity and diversity within the judiciary by ensuring the representation of judges from various regions, genders, castes, and communities, reflecting the social fabric of the country.

• By minimizing the potential for judicial or executive interference in judicial appointments, AIJS would safeguard the independence and accountability of judges, thereby upholding the integrity of the judiciary.

• AIJS would establish a reservoir of skilled and experienced judges who can be appointed to higher judicial positions, thereby enhancing the career prospects and mobility of judges within the judicial system.

Constitutional Scope for AIJS:

• Article 312 of the Constitution, amended by the 42nd Amendment, establishes the AIJS and mandates a resolution passed by the Council of States (Rajya Sabha) with a two-thirds majority, as well as a parliamentary law.

• This Constitution acknowledges that the existing rules governing the subordinate judiciary in the States must be replaced by a central law in order for this proposal to be successful.

Challenges Ahead for Implementation:

• It is unlikely that all States will agree to relinquish control over another aspect of their jurisdiction to centralization.

• At first glance, the idea of a national service for judges, equivalent to the position of district judges, with a retirement age of 60, may seem appealing to young lawyers who wish to apply for it. However, it is important to remember that legal education is not standardized nationwide. After becoming lawyers, individuals typically consider judicial service based on practical experience rather than academic excellence.

• Furthermore, since the number of district judges promoted to the High Courts is significantly lower than those from the Bar, the lack of certainty regarding career progression may also make a national judicial service less appealing.

• The proposed measure would encroach upon the federal structure and the autonomy of the states and high courts, which are constitutionally entrusted with the duty of overseeing the subordinate judiciary.

• Implementing such a measure would result in a conflict of interest and dual control over judges, as they would be answerable to both the central and state governments.

• This measure would disregard the local laws, languages, and customs of different states, which are crucial for the efficient functioning of the judiciary.

• The morale and motivation of current judicial officers would be adversely affected, as they would be deprived of opportunities and incentives for career advancement.

The lack of consensus on AIJS in 2023 is primarily attributed to the conflicting viewpoints held by key stakeholders, preventing its implementation. Despite being proposed, the establishment of AIJS faces significant hurdles in garnering a consensus among major stakeholders, resulting in its current unimplemented status.