Making a Case for All India Judicial Services

The concept of a centralized All India Judicial Service first originated in 1958 from the Law Commission’s report on reforms in judicial administration. The report discussed ideas like conducting a common competitive exam for selections, ensuring standardised salaries and service conditions across states, and having a constitutional body like UPSC handle training and appointments for the lower judiciary.

Over the next few decades, several expert bodies revisited this recommendation. The 1978 Law Commission report again highlighted the need for a unified judicial service considering rising pendency. The Parliamentary Standing Committee endorsed AIJS in 2006 and even drafted an enabling bill. In 1992, the Supreme Court directed the government to set up AIJS citing it as an urgent reform.

In recent years, AIJS has been frequently discussed by various institutions. The SC took suo moto cognizance of delays in appointing district judges in 2017 and had senior lawyers submit proposals involving a Central Selection Mechanism. The government itself has been considering AIJS – a comprehensive proposal was approved in 2012, followed by discussions in conferences of chief justices and chief ministers over the next few years.

However, despite appearing in multiple Law Commission reports, being ordered by the Supreme Court, and being examined by the central government, draft bills and detailed framework designs, consensus on AIJS remains elusive over six decades after it was first envisioned. Both the central government and Supreme Court continue engaging in consultations with high courts and state governments.

Rationale and Expected Benefits

The proposal for a centralized All India Judicial Service aims to address some systemic issues plauging the lower judiciary by streamlining recruitment, training, and career progression.

• Firstly, AIJS is expected to reduce prolonged vacancies in higher judicial posts like district judges and accelerate appointments. Having a unified exam and selection process will enlarge the talent pool beyond what individual state public service commissions may draw from. It can also reduce the influence of patronage and make postings performance-based.
• Secondly, centralized appointment and allocations would ensure uniform tenure conditions, salaries, allowances and age of superannuation across all states. Today, wide variations across state judicial services negatively impact efficient administration. AIJS can guarantee equality for all its members.
• Thirdly, a properly designed exam pattern and curriculum of national law schools can better prepare judges to handle complex cases. As officers periodically move across different states during postings, it will promote integration of procedural knowledge. AIJS will aim to maintain consistent training standards for new recruits and in-service officers.
• Lastly, the service is expected to provide increased opportunities and representation from marginalized communities and economically weaker sections both in selections as well as later elevation to higher courts. A key argument made in favor of AIJS is that existing systems have failed to support true diversity across many states.

Thus, the proposal promises structural changes to tackle vacancies, disparities, delays and diversity issues plaguing the lower courts. However, states have also resisted perceived loss of autonomy and discretion.

Constitutional Framework

The Constitution of India empowers the Parliament to create more all-India services under Article 312. This provision has been leveraged to set up services like the IAS, IPS and IFS. AIJS requires invoking the same parliamentary route by passing a resolution backed by two-third members present and voting in Rajya Sabha.

However, Article 312(2) specifies that the scope cannot include posts inferior to district judges, who derive direct authority from high courts per Articles 233 and 234. District courts are supervised by high courts who frame the rules of recruitment and service conditions without central government interference. The proposal aims to cover appointment of district judges who interface between the lower judiciary and high courts.

The high courts and state governments have had some major reservations despite AIJS technically only regulating from the level of district judges who represent the higher judiciary. They have seen it as violating federalism since lower court judges provide core governance services intimately connected with regional needs.

However, the counterview is that AIJS does not dilute the constitutional framework – it would work within this structure as a unifying recruitment mechanism. Once appointed, the service rules will require officers to serve both under state governments and report to the respective high courts. Many experts have concurred that a properly designed AIJS can address systemic inefficiencies without being incompatible with federal principles laid out in the Constitution.

Core Aspects of the AIJS Proposal

The framework envisioned for the proposed All India Judicial Service involves centralised recruitment through a competitive exam conducted by a designated constitutional body on the lines of the Union Public Service Commission.

Based on merit, candidates will be allocated and inducted into various state cadres as well as categories like civil judges, departmental judicial officers, and fast-track promotees. Their initial appointments, seniority, promotions, transfers, disciplinary inquiries, and age of retirement will be governed through AIJS rules. Pay parity and uniform tenure conditions will apply irrespective of the varying high court jurisdictions they serve under.

Post-induction training will take place through designated national law schools to align standards using a common curriculum. Judges can periodically transfer across state cadres providing varied exposure. Specialists can also be groomed in key verticals like environmental law, tax frauds and commercial disputes through tailored courses.

The proposed framework also recommends an oversight All India Judicial Service Commission aided by a Directorate General for administration. The Commission will handle selections, placements, promotions, policies and service conditions. The Directorate will secure infrastructure, training resources, performance metrics and grievance redressal. Such a structure can streamline governance of the service.

The exact constitution and mandate of these oversight bodies is still shaping up. Consensus needs evolving on aspects like state government representations, involvement of high courts in transfers and postings, fixing provincial quotas for cadre allocations etc. Based on the model finally adopted, the AIJS can fulfill its core objectives.

Concerns and Challenges

While the All India Judicial Service has many proponents and government-backed proposals, consensus has remained elusive. Fundamentally, some states view it as an infringement of federal rights and against regional autonomy.

States have contended that AIJS officers for lower courts discharge core governance duties like revenue cases, petty crimes and contractual disputes that require local affiliations. Central selection and frequent inter-state transfers may dilute connections with vernacular languages and sociocultural context. They want primary control over recruitment rather than just quotas for state cadres.

High Courts too have sought greater involvement like shortlisting state candidates before common finals or retaining certain disciplinary controls over judges under their jurisdiction rather than leaving it to proposed AIJS oversight bodies. They have argued that separation of powers accords near-complete authority over lower judiciary to the courts alone.

There are also apprehensions that AIJS may promote elitism by focusing excessive attention on supposed merit in a centralized exam rather than judges’ responsiveness to different classes of litigants. Without enough diversity and fair regional representation in selection committees, it can exacerbate existing imbalances.

Finally, there are execution challenges in securing consensus on aspects like oversight structure, state quotas, designing curriculum and syllabus, extent of high court involvement in transfers and postings etc. The varying views also makes political consensus difficult despite periodic Law Commission recommendations and Supreme Court directions.

Bridging these multiple trust deficits among states and judiciary while preserving regional needs is essential for rolling out the service.

Conclusion

The concept of a unified All India Judicial Service has been discussed for over six decades now as a reform to tackle systemic challenges of recruitment, vacancies, delays, and improving diversity in India’s lower judiciary.

Multiple expert reports, SC judgments, inter-state consultations, government proposals and parliamentary standng committee draft Bills have repeatedly examined its feasibility but implementing AIJS remains elusive and subject to debate.

While the framework enjoys backing for its potential benefits like expanded talent pool, equal tenure conditions across states and raising the standards of court administration, states have resisted perceived compromise in autonomy especially over judges handling core local cases. High Courts too want preserves powers over lower judiciary including scope for transfers.

As of 2022, the central government has not introduced any Bill on AIJS citing lack of political consensus and continued divergent views from both states and judiciary. The Supreme Court however continues to espouse structured changes through a Central Selection Mechanism for district judges even if wider AIJS materialization remains uncertain.

On balance, while AIJS is legally permissible under the Constitution if Parliament greenlights it, building trust across stakeholders may necessitate nuanced models curtailing too centralized control. Iterating proposal specifics through sustained dialogue among states, judiciary and executive is vital.

In conclusion, the optimistic outlook is that AIJS will help harness diverse competencies from across India to raise standards of justice delivery. However, its actual rollout requires reconciling regional voices to balance meritocracy with local affiliations through creative benchmarks on quotas, transfers and retention policies.