What's New

ALL INDIA JUDICIAL SERVICE

Relevance:

GS 2

• Appointment to various Constitutional posts, powers, functions and responsibilities of various Constitutional Bodies.
• Separation of powers between various organs dispute redressal mechanisms and institutions.

Why in News:

• President Draupadi Murmu advocated for the establishment of an All-India Judicial Service during her keynote speech at the Supreme Court’s Constitution Day event, proposing a unified system for recruiting judges.

                                    Source- The Business Standard

Current process for recruitment to the lower judiciary in India:

• Constitutional Provisions: Articles 233 and 234 of the Indian Constitution empower High Courts and State Public Service Commissions for lower judiciary recruitment.
• District Judge Appointment: Article 233 states that the Governor, in consultation with the High Court, appoints District Judges.
• Judicial Services Appointment: Article 234 specifies that the Governor, following rules established by them in consultation with the State Public Service Commission and the relevant High Court, appoints individuals other than District Judges to the state’s Judicial Services.
• High Court Control: Article 235 places the lower judiciary under the control of the respective High Court.
• Consultation and Approval: The collegium, comprising the Chief Justice of India and other senior judges, suggests names for appointment, which are then sent to the government for consultation and approval.

About All India Judicial Service

• Origin and Proposal: The concept of All India Judicial Service (AIJS) was initially suggested by the 14th Report of the Law Commission of India in 1958.
• Recruitment and Allocation: AIJS aims to recruit district judges centrally through an all-India examination, similar to the process for IAS and IPS, and allocate them to each state.
• Objective: The primary goal is to establish a transparent and efficient recruitment method that attracts top talent to India’s legal profession.
• Current Appointment System: Presently, district judges are appointed by the state governor based on advice from the chief justice of the respective state’s high court.
• Constitutional Provisions: Article 312 of the Constitution allows for the establishment of AIJS, specifically excluding any position lower than that of a district judge as defined in Article 236.
• Legislative Authority: The 42nd Constitutional amendment in 1976 empowered Parliament to create All-India Services, including AIJS, governing the ‘Administration of Justice’ and the organization of courts, excluding the Supreme Court and High Courts.
• Formation Procedure: Parliament can enact laws for AIJS creation if the Rajya Sabha, with a two-thirds majority, supports a resolution. This law wouldn’t be considered a constitutional amendment under Article 368.

Lack of Consensus on All India Judicial Service (AIJS):

• Lack of Consensus on AIJS: The Law Ministry currently reports a lack of agreement regarding the establishment of an All India Judicial Service (AIJS).
• In 2022, the Union Minister for Law & Justice communicated to the Rajya Sabha the absence of any plans for AIJS due to disagreements among various State Governments and High Courts.
• Past Discussions: Discussions on AIJS occurred in 2017 during a meeting of the Parliamentary Consultative Committee and again in 2021 in the Parliamentary Committee on the Welfare of SCs/STs. However, both instances failed to yield consensus on the matter.
• Continued Hurdles: Ongoing debates and discussions have consistently faced challenges in arriving at a collective agreement regarding the implementation of AIJS.

Significance of the All India Judicial Service

• Judge-to-Population Ratio: India’s current judge-to-population ratio is significantly below global standards, with only 21 judges per million people compared to the suggested 50 judges per million by the Law Commission. In contrast, countries like the U.S. and the U.K. have 107 and 51 judges per million people respectively, highlighting the urgent need to bridge this gap.
• Vacancies and Pendency: With nearly 5,000 vacant judicial positions and over 5 crore pending cases, primarily concentrated in district courts (85% of pending cases), the judiciary faces a severe backlog.
  • Over 1 lakh cases have been pending for more than 30 years. Projections indicate a potential escalation to 15 crore cases in 30 years, requiring 75,000 judges, emphasizing the pressing need for swift action to address this issue.
• Career Growth and Talent Pool: Presently, less than a quarter of judicial officers have opportunities for elevation to High Courts, leaving the majority reaching only the district judge rank towards the end of their careers.
  • An All-India Judicial Service (AIJS) could enhance the talent pool available to High Courts and the Supreme Court by introducing younger, skilled legal professionals, ensuring a robust selection process for judges.
• Induction of Fresh Legal Talent: An AIJS can implement a nationwide merit-based selection system, tapping into suitably qualified young legal talent and nurturing their growth from lower levels to higher echelons of the judiciary.
• Igniting Young Minds: By identifying and selecting exceptional young individuals, an AIJS can fuel the aspirations of promising talent, providing a structured platform for their development and progression within the judiciary.
• Promoting Social Inclusion: The establishment of an AIJS could significantly contribute to social inclusion by ensuring adequate representation of marginalized and deprived segments of society within the judiciary, addressing the current imbalance in the system.

Challenges

• State Prerogative in Judiciary Recruitment: Article 233 grants states the authority to recruit subordinate judiciary, raising concerns over the encroachment on federalism if AIJS is implemented, potentially conflicting with state governance rights.
• Language Barrier in Judiciary Hearings: Apprehensions arise about the effectiveness of judges from different regions handling cases in local languages, especially in southern states, raising concerns about the language barrier within the AIJS framework.
• Constitutional Constraint on AIJS: Article 312’s Clause 3 imposes limitations, barring AIJS from appointing positions below that of a district judge, posing a constitutional hurdle to AIJS for recruiting the lower judiciary.
• High Court Administrative Control Erosion: The establishment of AIJS might weaken the administrative control of High Courts over the subordinate judiciary, potentially impacting judicial independence.
• Independence of District Judges: The present system ensures District Judges’ independence from state governments through High Court’s involvement in their appointment, transfer, and removal. AIJS implementation might alter this dynamic.
• Centralized Power in Judicial Appointments: The proposal for a National Judicial Service Commission, while suggested to oversee AIJS appointments, could concentrate significant power in a few hands, raising concerns over excessive centralization.
• Representation of Marginalized Communities: The creation of AIJS might conflict with existing state quotas benefiting marginalized communities, potentially causing opposition due to discrepancies between state and central classifications of OBCs and concerns regarding representation.

Way Forward

• Collaborative Approach: Foster dialogue among the central government, states, and judiciary to develop a balanced AIJS framework respecting federal principles.
• Language Proficiency Initiatives: Implement targeted language proficiency programs for AIJS recruits to master local languages, enhancing their effectiveness in court proceedings.
• Constitutional Review: Consider constitutional amendments to reconcile Article 233 and Article 312 limitations, facilitating AIJS creation within constitutional boundaries.
• Phased Rollout: Introduce AIJS gradually, starting with pilot programs in specific regions to evaluate effectiveness and address challenges before nationwide implementation.
• Transparent Selection: Design a transparent, merit-driven selection process for AIJS recruits, involving diverse stakeholders to ensure fairness in appointments.
• High Court Empowerment: Develop mechanisms empowering High Courts to oversee AIJS operations, maintaining their administrative control for judicial independence.
• Inclusive Representation: Prioritize representation of marginalized communities within the AIJS framework, aligning with existing state quotas to promote diversity on the bench.

Establishing an All India Judicial Service (AIJS) promises to revolutionize India’s judiciary by tackling persistent issues like vacancies and backlog. However, overcoming challenges such as federal concerns, language barriers, constitutional limitations, and maintaining judicial autonomy demands a collaborative approach. Addressing these challenges through language proficiency programs, constitutional review, phased implementation, transparent selection, and inclusive representation of marginalized groups is essential to unleash the transformative potential of AIJS and fortify the country’s judicial system.

Source:

The Indian Express

Mains Question:

“Discuss the potential impact of instituting an All India Judicial Service (AIJS) on India’s judicial system. Highlight the challenges and concerns associated with its implementation and suggest measures to address these issues for effective integration. (250 words)”