Time to Establish All India Judicial Service

Context: The recent controversies surrounding the judiciary, including allegations of corruption, opaque judicial appointments, and questionable judicial decisions have reignited the debate on Judicial Accountability in India. 

Relevance of the Topic: Mains: All India Judicial Service: Need, Advantages and Disadvantages.

Issues in the Current Judicial Selection System: 

• Allegations of Corruption: The discovery of half-burnt currency notes at the residence of a Delhi High Court Judge has raised serious concerns about financial misconduct within the judiciary. Unlike other public officials, judges are not subjected to immediate legal action like filing of FIR, leading to apprehensions of bias and selective approach to judicial accountability. E.g., Justice Soumitra Sen, who was impeached for financial misconduct only after prolonged proceedings.
• Opacity in the Collegium System: The Collegium system, where judges select other judges, has become a subject of criticism for lack of transparency, nepotism, and favoritism. E.g., Justice Ranjan Gogoi sexual harassment case, where an internal Supreme Court panel cleared him without an independent review, led to public outrage.
• Lack of Diversity and Representation: The higher judiciary lacks diversity, with low representation of women, marginalised communities, and candidates from diverse socio-economic backgrounds. E.g., As of 2024, only 3 out of 34 Supreme Court judges are women, highlighting gender disparity in judicial appointments.

Proposal for Indian Judicial Service (AIJS)

• One proposed solution is the establishment of an All India Judicial Service (AIJS), modeled after other civil services like the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) and Indian Police Service (IPS).
• AIJS aims to establish a competitive and transparent selection process for the appointment of judges at the national level, ensuring judicial accountability and efficiency.

Advantages of AIJS

• Merit-based and transparent selection: AIJS would ensure judges are selected through an open and competitive examination, reducing nepotism and favoritism in judicial appointments. The recruitment process would be handled by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC), ensuring fairness.
• Greater inclusivity and representation: A national-level selection system would bring in candidates from different social, economic, and regional backgrounds. It would address the issue of low representation of marginalised communities and women in the judiciary.
• Stronger oversight and accountability: Judges recruited through AIJS could be subjected to periodic performance reviews and ethical oversight, ensuring integrity and discipline. E.g., In Germany, judges undergo structured civil service evaluations, maintaining judicial accountability and high professional standards.

Disadvantages of AIJS

• Dilution of Separation of Powers: The creation of AIJS can blur the constitutional boundary between the executive and judiciary. It empowers the Union executive to influence judicial appointments, reducing the autonomy of the judiciary in state matters.
• Undermines federal structure: Judicial recruitment is a State subject under the constitutional scheme. Centralising the process undermines the principle of federalism and erodes states’ autonomy in administering justice.
• Threat to Judicial independence: Traditionally, higher judiciary evaluates and appoints the lower judiciary, ensuring accountability within the institution. A centralised service may lead to external control over the judiciary, compromising its independence.
• Opposition from Bar Associations: AIJS entrants will have a faster track to higher judiciary posts, bypassing experienced local advocates.
• Lack of consensus: Disagreements persist over eligibility criteria, age limits, qualification requirements, and implementation of reservations.
• Exclusion of State-Specific backward groups: Centralised reservation lists may not include communities listed as OBC/SC/ST in state lists. As a result, marginalised groups in specific states may lose representation in the judiciary.
• Local language barrier: Judicial officers selected through AIJS may not be proficient in regional languages. This can hinder communication with litigants and affect the quality of justice delivery at the district level.
• Not a complete remedy: Also, the creation of AIJS will not address the structural issues plaguing the lower judiciary.

Way Forward

• Balanced Judicial Appointments with Greater Transparency: There is a need to establish a Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) that includes representatives from the judiciary, executive, and civil society. Furthermore, transparent selection criteria and public disclosure of appointments, rejections, and reasons behind judicial decisions need to be given to uphold confidence in the judiciary.
• Strengthening Judicial accountability: Implement periodic performance reviews and ethical oversight for judges. Set up an independent monitoring body to handle complaints related to judicial misconduct and financial irregularities.

Establishing the All India Judicial Service (AIJS) could be a transformative step in enhancing judicial accountability, ensuring merit-based appointments, and improving public confidence in India’s judiciary.