Introduction:

Recently, Chief Justice of India, D.Y. Chandrachud advocated for the implementation of the All India Judicial Service (AIJS), emphasizing the need to address vacancies and expedite the disposal of cases in the judiciary. With a staggering backlog of cases and a need for fresh legal talent, the AIJS is seen as a potential reform that could streamline the recruitment of judges and improve the overall justice delivery system in India. However, this proposal has its fair share of challenges and opposition, particularly regarding its impact on federalism and judicial autonomy.

Understanding the All India Judicial Service (AIJS)

• The AIJS, envisioned under Article 312 of the Constitution (amended by the 42nd Amendment), aims to centralize the recruitment of judges at the level of Additional District Judges and District Judges across all states. Similar to the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) conducting national-level exams for civil services, AIJS proposes a central recruitment process for judges, who would then be assigned to different states.
• The purpose of this initiative is to bring uniformity and transparency in the judicial recruitment process while addressing the shortage of judges at the lower judiciary.

Current Recruitment Process for Judges

• Presently, the recruitment of district judges is governed by Articles 233 and 234 of the Indian Constitution.
• The process is decentralized, with each state conducting its recruitment through the State Public Service Commissions and the respective High Courts. The High Courts exercise jurisdiction over the subordinate judiciary, conducting interviews and selecting candidates for appointment.
• Judicial officers below the rank of district judge are recruited through the Provincial Civil Services (Judicial) exam, commonly referred to as the PCS(J) exam.

Arguments in Favour of AIJS

1. Fresh Legal Talent: AIJS offers an opportunity to attract young and qualified legal professionals to join the judiciary. A national-level service with a well-defined career path, including a superannuation age of 60, would be appealing to fresh talent, particularly those from diverse legal backgrounds. This can strengthen the overall judicial system by ensuring that the best candidates are selected based on merit.
2. Social Inclusion and Diversity: AIJS can play a crucial role in ensuring representation for marginalized communities. By adopting an inclusive recruitment process, it can facilitate the entry of individuals from underprivileged backgrounds, including women and minorities, into the judiciary.
3. Reducing Judicial Pendency: One of the pressing issues facing the Indian judiciary is the backlog of cases. As of early 2024, the lower judiciary alone accounted for over 3.8 crore pending cases, contributing to the overall backlog of 4.4 crore cases across the country. AIJS could help by quickly filling up vacancies in the lower courts, thereby reducing the burden on the system.
4. Improving the Judge-to-Population Ratio: India currently has about 19 judges per 10 lakh people, whereas the Law Commission has recommended at least 50 judges per 10 lakh people. The creation of AIJS can help bridge this gap by expediting the recruitment of judges, improving access to justice, and enhancing the efficiency of the judiciary.

Challenges to the Implementation of AIJS

Despite its potential benefits, the AIJS faces significant challenges, particularly from states and High Courts that are resistant to centralization of judicial recruitment.

1. Centralization Concerns: The proposal to centralize the recruitment of judges raises concerns about the dilution of federal principles. Under the current system, states have autonomy in managing their subordinate judiciary, and there is apprehension that AIJS would encroach upon state powers. States are unlikely to support a system that would take away their control over judicial appointments.
2. Lack of Consensus: There is no broad consensus on the AIJS proposal. Out of all the High Courts in India, only two are in favor of the idea, while thirteen have expressed opposition. Key points of contention include eligibility criteria, age limits, reservation policies, and the selection process.
3. Language Barriers: One of the major challenges is the issue of language. Since cases in the lower courts are argued in local languages, there are concerns about how judges recruited through a national process could function effectively in states where they are unfamiliar with the language and local customs.
4. Advantages of the Current System: Proponents of the existing decentralized recruitment system argue that it is better suited to ensuring diversity and understanding of local practices. High Courts are well-positioned to assess the needs of the judiciary in their respective states, and the current process allows for a more nuanced approach to judicial appointments.
5. Unattractive Career Option for Young Lawyers: Critics argue that AIJS may not be an attractive option for young lawyers, particularly those from elite law schools, who might prefer careers in litigation, corporate law, or law firms. Additionally, the slow rate of promotion to the High Courts for district judges could further deter qualified candidates from considering judicial service as a viable career path.
6. Different from Civil Services: Unlike civil servants, judges do not have the support of an experienced lower bureaucracy to assist in decision-making. They are required to be well-versed in legal matters and judicial processes, making the job more demanding. This fundamental difference may make a judicial service less attractive compared to other central services like IAS or IPS.

The Way Forward

While the AIJS has been pitched as a solution to the problems of judicial vacancies, lack of diversity, and pendency of cases, its implementation requires careful consideration and consensus-building. Any proposal to centralize judicial recruitment must ensure that it does not undermine the autonomy of states or compromise the quality of judicial appointments.

The AIJS can address judicial vacancies if it tackles challenges like centralization, language barriers, and career incentives. A well-designed AIJS with safeguards and regional considerations can streamline recruitment, creating a more efficient and inclusive judicial system.

To achieve this, adequate recruitment through AIJS, similar to other national services like IAS and IPS, could be the key to addressing the urgent need for more judges and reducing pendency. However, any such system must prioritize maintaining the independence and integrity of the judiciary, while fostering cooperation between the Centre and the states.