The cash recovery at Delhi High Court Judge Yashwant Varma’s residence underscores the need for an All India Judicial Service (AIJS) to ensure transparency, merit-based recruitment, and accountability in the judiciary.

Recent Judicial Controversies

• Half-Burnt Currency Scandal: The Delhi fire brigade discovered half-burnt currency notes at the official residence of a High Court judge. 
• Lokpal vs. Judiciary: The Supreme Court objected to the Lokpal taking cognizance of a corruption complaint against a High Court judge, questioning the judiciary’s accountability mechanisms.
• Insensitive Judicial Rulings: A High Court judge ruled that grabbing a minor girl’s body parts and breaking her pyjama strings did not constitute an attempt to rape. The Supreme Court stayed the order, citing a lack of sensitivity.

About All India Judicial Service (AIJS)

• AIJS is a proposed centralized recruitment system for appointing district judges through an all-India examination, similar to IAS and IPS. 
• It aims to ensure a transparent, efficient selection process and attract top legal talent, replacing the current state-level appointment system.
• Currently, district judges are appointed by the state governor on the advice of the chief justice of the high court of the concerned state.

Constitutional Perspective on the All-India Judicial Service (AIJS)

• Constitutional Provision for AIJS: The 42nd Constitutional Amendment (1976) amended Article 312(1) to empower Parliament to establish the All-India Judicial Service (AIJS), similar to other All-India Services (IAS, IPS, IFoS).
  • Under Article 312(1), the Rajya Sabha must pass a resolution with at least a two-thirds majority of members present and voting.
• Limitation on AIJS Posts: As per Article 312(2), AIJS cannot include any post lower than that of a district judge (as defined in Article 236).
  • Definitions under Article 236:
    • District Judge: Includes judges of city civil courts, additional/joint/assistant district judges, chief judges of small cause courts, chief presidency magistrates, additional/assistant sessions judges, etc.
    • Judicial Service: Comprises individuals intended to fill district judge posts and subordinate civil judicial positions.

Need For Creation Of All India Judicial Service (AIJS)

• Common Factor in Recent Judicial Controversies: All judges currently enter the system through the Collegium process.
• Opaque Selection Process: The Collegium operates behind closed doors, lacking transparency in judicial appointments.
• Judicial Dynasties: A few influential families dominate the higher judiciary, limiting opportunities for outsiders.
• Risk of Mediocrity: The current system does not always ensure merit-based selection, sometimes leading to the appointment of incompetent judges.
• Enhancing Career Growth in the Judiciary: Currently, less than 25% of judicial officers advance to High Court judgeships, with most retiring as district judges. 
  • The remaining 75% of High Court appointments come from the Bar Association. AIJS would create a larger, younger talent pool for High Courts and the Supreme Court.
• Addressing Judicial Vacancies and Delays: An IJS could streamline recruitment, ensuring timely appointments and reducing delays. 
  • Example: India has over 5 crore pending cases, with nearly 4,000 judicial vacancies in lower courts (as of 2023).

Significance of an Indian Judicial Service (IJS)

• Enhancing Judicial Efficiency: A standardized recruitment system will ensure uniform pay, structured training, and faster appointments across states. This will help reduce case backlogs and improve overall judicial effectiveness.
• Strengthening Legal Infrastructure for Business: Efficient courts will speed up dispute resolution, improving India’s Ease of Doing Business ranking. A stronger judiciary will enhance investor confidence and foster economic growth.
• Bridging the Judge-to-Population Gap: India’s judge-to-population ratio is far below global standards; IJS can help close this gap.
• Promoting Social Inclusion in Judiciary: A national-level selection process will ensure fair representation of marginalized and underrepresented communities. 
  • A merit-based selection system will encourage skilled law graduates to join the judiciary. This will create a talent pipeline for future appointments to higher courts.
• Ensuring Transparency and Fair Appointments: A structured recruitment approach will reduce nepotism and corruption in the judicial selection process.
  • Comprehensive training in multiple branches of law and a Supreme Court-led oversight mechanism would help maintain integrity and enforce disciplinary action when needed.

Challenges to Implementing the All-India Judicial Service (AIJS)

• Threat to Judicial Independence: Currently, High Courts oversee the appointment, transfer, and removal of district judges, ensuring their independence from state governments. 
  • AIJS could centralize power in a National Judicial Service Commission, raising concerns about excessive control.
• Resistance from State Governments: As per Article 233, recruitment to subordinate judiciary is the prerogative of the State. 
  • Many states oppose AIJS, fearing this would go against federalism, lead to loss of their autonomy in judicial appointments and the dilution of their influence over the lower judiciary.
• Impact on Marginalized Community Representation: Many communities benefiting from state quotas may oppose AIJS, as state-recognized OBCs may not align with central classifications. 
  • While AIJS aims to improve representation, several states already reserve judicial posts for marginalized groups and women.
• Language Barrier in Judicial Proceedings: Judges recruited centrally may struggle with local languages, affecting their ability to conduct trials and deliver judgments effectively.
  • Since proceedings of civil and criminal courts are to be conducted in a language prescribed by the respective State governments, this could hinder judicial efficiency.
• Bureaucratization of the Judiciary: A centrally controlled AIJS could lead to a rigid, bureaucratic structure, reducing the flexibility needed to address state-specific judicial concerns.

Way Forward

• Consensus-Building Among Stakeholders: The Centre should engage with High Courts, State Governments, and the Supreme Court to address concerns.
• Transparency: A merit-based selection process with publicly accessible recruitment details should replace the opaque Collegium system.
• Oversight: A Supreme Court-led oversight mechanism should be established to ensure judicial accountability and prevent bureaucratic stagnation.
• Hybrid Model for Recruitment: A system where the recruitment process is centralized but states have a say in postings and promotions can help address federalism concerns.

Conclusion

AIJS can enhance judicial efficiency, transparency, and merit-based appointments, but unless there is a broad consensus supporting the All-India Judicial Service, discussions should prioritize more direct solutions to address the challenges facing the Indian judiciary.

DOWNLOAD PDF