This article is written by Udita Prakash from UPES, Dehradun. Here it’s briefly discussed about the All India Judicial Service, its criticism, solution and need for having AIJS in the country.
As early as 1961, a proposal for All India Judicial Service was first suggested at the Conference of the Chief Justice as a way to remove any room for judicial or executive intervention in appointments to the judiciary. The proposal was shelved after some states and superior courts opposed it until 1976 when the Constitution was amended to establish an AIJS under Article 312. The proposal was again presented by the governing UPA government in 2012, but the Bill was shelved again after opposition by a High Court Chief Justice who called this a violation of their rights.
History of AIJS
The formation of an All India Judicial Service (AIJS) has a protracted and active history. As the problem is amassing momentum because the central government finalizes a Bill to set up a judicial provider at some point in India, a Bill that remained withinside the history of the controversy on judicial reform for 65 years.
This Bill aims to create a centralized cadre of district judges and to switch the powers of hiring and appointing those judges from the better courts and national governments to a centralized community as exists for different degree examinations throughout India. It is thought that this Bill will assist fill the present vacancies withinside the Judiciary. AIJS was first proposed through the 14th report of the Law Commission in 1958. This report encouraged the advent of AIJS with the little element in its structure. They were hoping that the advent of the AIJS could appeal to the nice expertise within the country. Then, in 1976, Article 312 that parallels the officer choice method for the I.A.S changed into amended withinside the Constitution through the 42nd Amendment to create AIJS for the appointment of district judges.
The 77th and 116th reviews of the Prison Commissions additionally encouraged the advent of an AIJS. Furthermore, the 116th Report has provided the structure, the plan, the evaluations of academics, jurists, and the good judgment in the back of the AIJS. It referred to 40% of strength through the promotion of subordinate judges, 40% through direct recruitment, and 20% elevation of the Bar. Rules for provider exams and promotions could be managed through a proposed National Judicial Service Commission. The Honorable Supreme Court of India additionally upheld the similarly in All India Judges Association v. Union of India (2001) mentioning that AIJS ought to be set up and the Union of India ought to take suitable movement in this regard, regarding the observations of the State Reorganization Commission that the advent of this type of provider for all of India is a “necessity essential and pressing “. In recent years, even the Minister for Trade Union Law, alongside others, have time and again expressed their guide for the advent of the AIJS, and these days the valuable authorities answered through getting a draft ready to cover the AIJS coverage. However, the proposed coverage has confronted a combined reaction from the prison profession.
The AIJS is meant for the choice of judges on the district degree in competition to the country judicial exam that induces the lower judiciary which includes the Munsif courts and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, First Class Magistrate, Civil Judge-cum-first Class Magistrate, etc. The posted coverage definition consists of the choice procedure, the qualification standards of the chosen applicants. An attorney or a graduate devoted to the coaching profession from an identified law institute with seven years of experience is certified to take the AIJS examination.
A working towards deciding is likewise certified for the examination with the equal work revel in. Another critical component of the coverage is the age variety of 28 to 35 years of qualification for applicants who choose the AIJS examination. However, the previous consent of all superior courts is needed for the implementation of the policy. Unfortunately, HCs in India have proven a clean face to the concept of a National Judicial Screening Exam each time it is proposed. One main cause is that the high courts now no longer need to lose administrative manipulation over the choice. This makes it a challenging job for the Law Ministry as even earlier because in 2012-13 a committee of secretaries backed the idea of a national common test for judicial appointments. The same received a mixed response from the states and their judiciaries with 13 states and 18 High Courts either declined the idea or sought several changes to it.
Criticism of AIJS
Other than that, the policy itself has a few fundamental troubles because of which it has not got a fantastic response from felony specialists. The first query has to do with the age organization and the former enjoy that the examination seeks under its qualification criteria. The 7-year experience requirement could defeat the legislators’ cause of more participation through graduate students. Currently, the common age of a graduating pupil is 24 to 26, developing a difficult scenario wherein lawmakers agree that a 31- to 33-year-old will try and take a seat down for the examination after they may be on the identical level.
Therefore, the age limit and a preceding enjoyment of seven years could be unfavorable to the goal of measuring the interest of younger law graduates. Another grievance of the Bill is the non-consideration of the language barrier particularly in non-Hindi-talking states in which English isn’t as popular. Finally, the union authorities solved this trouble by making an extra addition to the coverage by taking a look at 22 languages indexed in Schedule 8 of the Constitution of India and by adopting the pattern of the United States. However, the trouble of interstate appointments nonetheless exists while a person from one country can’t be appointed in every other country. In that case, the AIJS follows the line of the State-Judicial exam, so it has now no longer added approximately any radical alternate withinside the current exam shape, other than a few areas.
According to the 101 Grant Applications Report (2020-2021) of the Ministry of Law and Justice, there are 24018 sanctioned judicial officer positions in India, of which 5146 are vacant. jurisdictions together with Allahabad High Court, Patna High Court, and Madhya Pradesh High Court make a contribution to 42.7% of general vacancies in India. However, different superior courts constitute a far lower proportion. Vacancies in subordinate courts are a good deal higher than in district courts. Therefore, AIJS will fill a restrained percent of the full vacancies. The goal of filling vacancies is empty due to the fact that maximum vacancies are from those courts, and converting the present judicial shape because of its inefficient overall performance could be an unfavorable step that can cause poor results.
Suggestion to the criticism
AIJS has been denoted as the answer to draw high-quality expertise to the judiciary, for vacancies, etc. However, the language barrier, the number of vacancies withinside the subordinate judiciary, and others are a number of the problems that can’t be resolved:
- First of all, to clear up the language barrier problem, applicants can fill in with the desired listing of the state that they need to join. And a small language-associated check may be taken earlier than or for the duration of the interview. The very last task listing may be primarily based totally on benefit and desire.
- Second, the union authorities and the judiciary have confronted the new AIJS draft and it’s far crucial to reap the consent of all of the superior courts earlier than imposing the new exam structure. To solve this dispute, the union authorities can make certain that every problem of the superior court is accommodated to AIJS coverage through growing a significant committee, which might have the registrar (exam) of every superior court as a member of the advisory body.
- Third, concerning the problem of subordinate advanced courtroom docket vacancies, the AIJS may be carried out in parts: one exam for the decrease judiciary, which might fill the subordinate courtroom docket positions, and the alternative for the energy advanced courtroom docket, as a way to deal best with district courts.
The change has to be made in Article 312 of the Indian Constitution which permits the recruitment of AIJS, the best for the cadre of district judges, and now no longer for the subordinate judiciary. The change of this text will permit the advent of this coverage to perform this exam for each district court and subordinate courts.
Need of AIJS
Huge vacancy of judges and postponement in hiring
There are presently around 5,400 vacant positions in lower judiciary across the nation and pendency of 2.78 crore cases in lower judiciary primarily due to inordinate delay in holding regular exams by states.
Lack of correct, excellent judicial officials
The ever continuing decline in their quality will delay delivery of justice, increase pendency of cases, impair quality of judgments, and in turn affect the competence of the higher judiciary as well.
Lack of price range with nation governments
State judicial offerings aren’t appealing to “pinnacle talent” because of low salaries, rewards, and reimbursement from state governments.
Lack of specialized nation schooling institutions
The award is a specialization that calls for modern-day schooling institutes and teachers, however, national institutes do now no longer permit such publicity to interns.
Discretion of a narrow body
The system of choosing an amazing choice is a tough activity and ought to now no longer be left to the discretion of some people (collegium) regardless of how sensible they are.
AIJS will allow a large number of judges to fill those vacancies in the lower judiciary through a trial across India. Applicants could be posted in states where more judges are needed to be selected through AIJS.
Better efficiency of the courts
The processing and the problem of the delay of cases would be eliminated with the timely hiring of judges for the lower judiciary in the district courts and subordinate courts through AIJS.
Improvement in the efficiency of judicial administration
AIJS would attract the best talents in the country and therefore could maintain high standards of judicial administration.
No more nepotism
The issue of corruption, nepotism, etc. that we notice in almost every selection process from now on, may decline. AIJS will lead to the appointment of quality judges, who have experience and have studied all types of cases, and public faith in the judiciary will be restored.
Promote national integration
AIJS will lead to the appointment of the best talents from other states in states with scarce resources.
Representation of the marginalized section
By following the reserve system in recruitment, underrepresented communities are represented in the judiciary.
Benefits of AIJS
Responsibility and transparency
A career in judicial service will make the judiciary more responsible, more professional, and possibly also more equitable.
It infuses objectivity in hiring
The open competition would provide objectivity in the hiring process of the judiciary by reducing the discretion of the selection panel.
Securing the best talent
AIJS will ensure a transparent and efficient recruitment method to attract the best talent in the Indian legal profession. The prospects for promotion to the superior courts, for the lower judiciary, at an early age would also increase, as they currently join at a much later age than Bar Association judges.
Uniformity throughout the country
The quality of adjudication and administration of justice would achieve uniformity throughout the country by eliminating differences at the state level in laws, practices, and standards.
Check case handling
The streamlined and objective recruitment process would ensure a regular flow of good quality judicial officers for vacant positions, reducing the handling of cases.
AIJS will improve the representative character of the judiciary by hiring trained officials from underprivileged sectors of society, especially women and SC / ST.
A well-organized judicial service can attract talent from our law schools and young and well-informed judicial officers at the additional district judge level will make a difference. As ADJs and district judges, they can help the court system move faster and more efficiently.
It is through an All India judicial services exam performed by the UPSC with a view to maintain “excessive standards” in the judiciary. In addition to providing an AIJS as an answer for judicial vacancies, it could be more prudent to research the motives and reasons for a huge variety of vacancies in poorly acting States. AIJS is going through hurdles from the executive block and additionally from high courts, despite the fact that the Supreme Court has requested for AIJS twice. Therefore, AIJS needs to be designed in a way to get rid of its shortcomings and it is able to be a powerful technique to the vacancy in judiciary. Adequate judges may be made to be handiest if they’re recruited in huge energy through AIJS much like we see in the case of IAS, IPS, IFS, and different civil offerings. Hence there needs to be no greater delay. Moreover, after the selection, a judicial provider officer may be furnished with enough education to address the job. A meritocratic judiciary is the want of the hour that is viable with an aggressive recruitment process.
LawSikho has created a telegram group for exchanging legal knowledge, referrals, and various opportunities. You can click on this link and join: