All India Judicial Services (AIJS)

< Daily Current Affairs & Important Editorials

All India Judicial Services (AIJS)

GS- II >>Polity>> Judiciary

Context: President Draupadi Murmu delivered the inaugural address at the Supreme Court’s Constitution Day celebrations and emphasized the need for the proposed the establishment of an all-India judicial service.

About All India Judicial Services (AIJS):

Historical background about AIJS:

• Law Commission’s 14th Report (1958): The concept of AIJS was initially introduced in the 14th report of the Law Commission in 1958.
• Centralized recruitment for district judges: AIJS proposed a system where the recruitment of district judges would be conducted centrally through an all-India examination.
• State allocation: Selected candidates would be allocated to states based on the AIJS model, resembling the structure of All-India Civil Services.
• Aim of AIJS creation: The primary objective was to eliminate the involvement of the judiciary and executive in the appointment of judicial officers, ensuring a more independent and transparent selection process.
• Constitutional amendments and Law Commission’s recommendations: The Constitution was amended under Article 312 to accommodate the creation of AIJS, reflecting the significance and seriousness of the proposal.
• Law Commission’s support: The Law Commission, in alignment with the need for AIJS, recommended its establishment to enhance the efficiency and independence of the judicial system.

Arguments favour in AIJS:

• Judicial vacancies: Law Commission reports, including the 1987 report, emphasized the need for an increased judge-to-population ratio (50 judges per million) compared to the existing ratio (20 judges per million).
• Reduction in pendency: Timely filling of vacancies through AIJS is seen as a solution to the issue of pending cases, contributing to a more expedited judiciary.
• Addressing vacancies: AIJS could help address the significant number of vacancies, approximately 5,000, across the country, leading to a more robust judiciary.
• Transparency and efficiency: The establishment of AIJS promises a transparent and efficient recruitment process for judicial officers.
• Just and fair recruitment: A competitive recruitment process under AIJS is expected to ensure a just and fair selection of the best talents across the nation.
• Combating malpractices: AIJS is seen as a means to curb malpractices such as corruption and nepotism in the recruitment process.
• Restoring public faith: A transparent recruitment system is believed to restore public faith in the judiciary of the country.
• Merit-based recruitment: The proposal for an all-India judicial service based on merit, competition, and transparency reflects a commitment to ensuring that the judiciary comprises individuals chosen for their capabilities and talents, fostering a more competent and effective legal system.
• Social empowerment: The suggestion to recruit judges from varied backgrounds and promote talent from lower levels to higher levels is a step towards empowering individuals from less-represented social groups, contributing to a more equitable legal landscape.

Challenges in AIJS:

• Federalism and Basic Structure Doctrine: Critics view AIJS as a challenge to federalism and the basic structure doctrine, considering it an encroachment on states’ powers granted by the Constitution.
• Dichotomy between Articles 233 and 312: AIJS raises concerns about the potential conflict between Article 233, granting states the power to appoint district judges, and Article 312, enabling the creation of All India Services.
• Language and cultural concerns: There is apprehension about outsiders lacking familiarity with local customs and languages, potentially affecting the quality of judicial decisions, especially in culturally sensitive cases.
• Non-uniform vacancies: The non-uniform distribution of vacancies across states, with most at the subordinate level, raises questions about the effectiveness of AIJS, which primarily focuses on district judge recruitment.
• Commercialization of education: The potential proliferation of coaching institutes could lead to the commercialization of legal education.
• Impact on state quotas: Communities benefiting from state quotas may lose reservation opportunities under the central government after the implementation of AIJS.
• Recent discussions and challenges: Ministerial Meetings (2017): Points like eligibility, age, selection criteria, qualification, and reservations for AIJS were discussed in meetings chaired by the Minister of Law and Justice.
• Parliamentary Consultative Committee (2017) and Committee on SCs/STs (2021): AIJS was deliberated in parliamentary meetings, indicating ongoing consideration.
• Lack of consensus (current status): The existing divergence of opinions among major stakeholders has prevented a consensus on the establishment of AIJS.

Way forward:

• Systemic reforms: States should focus on cleaning up systemic issues within their respective judicial systems, addressing concerns related to delegated authorities, uniform exam conduct, and providing grievance redressal mechanisms.
• Transparency and Accountability: Implementing transparent and accountable recruitment mechanisms, restructuring delegated authorities, and ensuring uniformity in examination conduct can restore faith in the lower judiciary.
• Localized AIJS entrance exams: Address language and cultural concerns by conducting AIJS entrance exams at zonal levels, allowing judges to be posted closer to their places of origin.
• Focus on state-specific solutions: Instead of relying on a centralized solution, states should identify and address their unique challenges in judicial recruitment to improve efficiency.
• Reconsideration of centralization: Reconsider the centralization of services, taking into account the recurring vacancies in various central services like IAS, IPS, and armed forces.
• Evidence-based approach: Instead of relying on unproven solutions, base decisions on an evidence-based approach that considers the specific challenges faced by the lower judicial system.
• Collaboration and dialogue: Foster collaboration and open dialogue between the central government, state governments, and High Courts to collectively work towards enhancing the efficiency of the judiciary.

Source: indianexpress.com