Context: This article is based on the news “President Murmu advocates for All-India Judicial Service: What the idea is, why it hasn’t been implemented” Which was published in the Indian Express. The President recently called for an “All-India Judicial Service (AIJS)” to recruit judges during her inaugural address at the Supreme Court’s Constitution Day celebration (November 26).

What is All-India Judicial Services? 

• The All-India Judicial Service is a reform push to Centralise the recruitment of judges at the level of additional district judges and district judges for all states.
• In the same way that the Union Public Service Commission conducts a central recruitment process and assigns successful candidates to cadres, lower judiciary judges are proposed to be recruited centrally and assigned to states.

What was the earlier proposal regarding the establishment of an All-India Judicial Service?

• The idea of a centralized judicial service was first deliberated in the Law Commission’s 1958 ‘Report on Reforms on Judicial Administration.’
• The idea was proposed again in the Law Commission Report of 1978, which discussed delays and arrears of cases in the lower courts.
• A Draft Bill: In 2006, the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice in its 15th Report supported the idea of a pan-Indian judicial service, and also prepared a draft Bill.

Also read: Pendency of Cases in the Supreme Court Need Structural Reforms

What is the constitutional perspective on the All-India Judicial Service?

• The 42nd Constitutional Amendment in 1976 amended Article 312(1) to empower the Parliament to establish an All-India Judicial Service (AIJS), along the lines of the All-India Services viz. IAS, IPS IFoS, etc.
• Accordingly, under Article 312(1) of the Constitution, the Rajya Sabha must pass a resolution supported by not less than two-thirds of its members present and voting.
• However, Article 312 (2) states that the All-India Judicial Service cannot include any post inferior to that of a district judge, as defined in Article 236. 

How will this differ from the present selection system?

• Articles 233 and 234 of the Constitution of India deal with appointing district judges and placing them in the states’ domain.
• All lower judiciary judges up to the level of district judges are selected through the judicial services exam.
• The State Public Service Commissions and the concerned High Court conduct the selection process, since HCs exercise jurisdiction over the subordinate judiciary in the state. 
• Panels of HC judges interview candidates after the exam and select them for appointment.

What are the advantages associated with the creation of the All-India Judicial Service?

• Transparency and Efficiency: Establishing an All-India Judicial Commission enhances transparency by providing a clear framework for the selection process. Open criteria, publicized evaluations, and decision-making visibility contribute to increased public trust in the judiciary.
• Address Structural issues: It will help to address structural issues such as varying pay and remuneration across states, to ensure standard training across states.  
  • Pay scales across States are abysmally low compared to that in the private sector, notably law firms, litigation, and the corporate sector.
• Low judge-to-population ratio: India indeed has a low judge-to-population ratio. This disparity has been pointed out as the reason for judicial delays.
  • Compared to developed nations, India has only 21 judges per million citizens while the US has 107 judges per million. 
• Faster Vacancies: All-India Judicial Service would help fill judicial vacancies more quickly, creating a centralized pool of qualified candidates. 
• According to National Judicial Data Grid records, a shortage of judges is behind the increasing backlog of cases in lower courts nationwide.
• Merit and legal Competence: The Uniform Process,  ensures judges are selected based on merit and legal competence rather than political affiliations.  An independent commission ensures that decisions are made autonomously, based on merit and legal qualifications. 
  • This independence is crucial for upholding the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.
• Uniformity in Selection: A centralized commission promotes uniformity in selecting judges across regions. This consistency helps maintain a standardized level of judicial quality, preventing regional biases and fostering a cohesive national legal system.
  • This will help bring uniformity in Eligibility, Age, Selection criteria, Qualification, Reservation, etc.
• Attract the Talent: A centralized pool of qualified judicial candidates would attract the best talent nationwide. This would help to ensure that the judiciary has access to the most qualified and experienced individuals to serve as judges.
• Reduce and Eliminate the Scope for Political Interference:  The 2017 Haryana Civil Services (judicial branch) paper leak case, in which a former High Court registrar is among the accused, is symptomatic of the rot plaguing the system at the state level.
• Promote National Integration: All-India Judicial Service would foster a national perspective among judges, enabling them to understand and appreciate the nuances of legal issues across different regions and states. This would contribute to more informed and impartial judicial decisions.

What challenges are associated with the implementation of the All-India Judicial Service?

• An affront to Federalism: A centralized recruitment process is seen as an affront to federalism and an encroachment on the powers of states granted by the Constitution.
  • A Centralization  may overlook regional variations, cultural nuances, and specific needs of individual states. 
• Lack of Consensus: In April 2013, the proposal was laid at the Conference of Chief Ministers and Chief Justices of the High Court. 
  • However, it was agreed that the issue needs further deliberation, but no consensus could be reached.
• Lack of Local Representation: Critics argue that the commission might lack true representativeness, potentially sidelining certain regions, communities, or legal traditions. 
  • This could lead to a homogenized judiciary that does not adequately reflect the diverse legal landscape of the country.
• Judicial independence: Currently High Courts oversee the Process of Appointment in the lower judiciary. All-India Judicial Service will undermine the role of HCs and constitutional directives of separation of judiciary from executive influence.
  • The susceptibility of the commission to political influence, either through the appointment process of its members or through subtle external pressures can not be denied. 
• Training and Language Barrier: All-India Judicial Service does not adequately address the challenges of providing standardized judicial training and ensuring linguistic competence across India’s diverse regions.
  • It may also end up not considering local laws, practices, and customs which vary widely across States, vastly increasing the costs of training for judges selected through the mechanism.
  • However, the All-India Judicial Service Supporter argued that if a central mechanism can work for administrative services, IAS and IPS officers can learn the language required for their cadre, and it can also work for judicial services.
• Need for Comprehensive Judicial Reform: Central recruitment would be unable to address the issues and problems in the judiciary.
  • All-India Judicial Service addresses only a narrow aspect of judicial reform and fails to tackle broader systemic issues within the judiciary.

Conclusion:

Unless a broad consensus emerges in favor of the All-India Judicial Service and its expected benefits, the debate and deliberation should focus on implementing more direct solutions to address the problems of the Indian judiciary.