Answer

The Indian Judicial Service (IJS) proposal aims to create a centrally recruited cadre for the judiciary, akin to the All India Services. While it seeks to enhance efficiency and uniformity, concerns over its impact on judicial independence persist. As of 2023, India has a judge-to-population ratio of 21 per million

Tension between Judicial Independence and Accountability

• Collegium System vs. Executive Oversight: The existing collegium system safeguards judicial independence, while IJS may bring executive interference in judicial appointments.
  For example: The Supreme Court struck down the NJAC Act in 2015, citing the risk of executive control over judiciary appointments.
• Potential Bureaucratization of Judiciary: A UPSC-led recruitment could make the judiciary similar to civil services, diluting its autonomous decision-making.
  For example: The Indian Administrative Service (IAS) operates under the executive, which may compromise judicial neutrality if a similar model is adopted.
• Disrupting the Doctrine of Separation of Powers: Judges selected through IJS may owe their positions to executive-controlled mechanisms, affecting impartiality in governance-related cases.
  
• Judicial Expertise vs. Generalized Recruitment: Direct recruitment through IJS may prefer generalists over legal experts, affecting legal interpretations and judgments.
  For example: The All India Judicial Service (AIJS) proposal has been criticized for not ensuring specialization in constitutional and criminal law.
• Resistance from Judiciary: The judiciary may see IJS as a challenge to its self-regulation and autonomy, creating friction between the judiciary and executive.
  For example: The Supreme Court resisted the National Judicial Commission Bill in 1990, citing concerns over dilution of independence.

Potential Constitutional Challenges

• Violation of Articles 124 & 217: These articles grant the President power to appoint judges in consultation with the judiciary, making IJS constitutionally questionable.
  For example: The Supreme Court ruled in the Second Judges Case (1993) that primacy in appointments must remain with the judiciary.
• Amendment Requirement (Article 312): An All-India Service requires a constitutional amendment, needing parliamentary approval and state ratification.
  For example: The All-India Judicial Service was proposed in 1972 but failed due to lack of state consensus.
• Impact on Federal Structure: High Courts enjoy autonomy under Article 229, and imposing a central recruitment process may be opposed by states.
  For example: Tamil Nadu and West Bengal have opposed central recruitment of judges, citing federal concerns.
• Challenges to Existing Judicial Appointments: Transitioning to IJS would disrupt current collegium-based appointments, leading to administrative and legal hurdles.
  For example: The 99th Constitutional Amendment (2014) was struck down due to concerns about altering the appointment system.
• Scope of Judicial Review: Any law creating IJS will likely face Supreme Court scrutiny, given its past stance on judicial independence.
  For example: The First Judges Case (1981) upheld executive primacy, but later cases reversed this, showing evolving judicial interpretation.

IJS in Addressing Representation, Transparency, and Integrity

Representation

• Diverse Talent Pool: A nationwide selection process can ensure that women, SC/ST, OBC, and regional candidates have better access to judicial positions, reducing judicial elitism.
  For example: Women constitute less than 12% of High Court judges today; IJS could correct this gender imbalance.
• Breaking Judicial Dynasties: The current system favors family legacies, limiting opportunities for first-generation lawyers. IJS would ensure merit-based selection over hereditary judicial careers.
  For example: Nearly 33% of SC judges hail from judicial families, restricting fresh entrants from diverse backgrounds.

Transparency

• Merit-based Examination: A UPSC-like process will publicly disclose selection criteria, eliminating bias and favoritism in judicial appointments.
  For example: The Civil Services Examination has helped create a transparent, competitive recruitment model for administrative services.
• Objective Selection Over Subjectivity: Collegium meetings are closed-door, whereas an IJS framework would involve structured evaluation, interviews, and background checks.
  For example: The Second Administrative Reforms Commission recommended open selection processes to improve institutional credibility.

Integrity

• Ethical Screening: A formal IJS selection process would include background checks and integrity assessments, minimizing corruption risks in judicial appointments.
• Accountability Mechanisms: Judges recruited via IJS could be subject to structured performance reviews, ensuring ethical conduct and curbing judicial misconduct.

The Indian Judicial Service (IJS) can enhance representation, transparency, and accountability by ensuring a more diverse and structured recruitment process. However, it must be carefully crafted to uphold judicial independence. A robust selection framework and constitutional safeguards are essential to prevent undue influence, maintaining the judiciary’s integrity while fostering inclusivity.

DOWNLOAD PDF