Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
The Indian judicial system, envisioned as an independent pillar of democracy, is currently facing challenges related to the appointment of judges. The existing system, primarily governed by the Collegium system established through Supreme Court judgments (specifically, the ‘Three Judges Cases’ starting in 1982), has been a source of contention with the executive branch. Recent public disagreements over names recommended by the Collegium and the government’s reluctance to approve them have highlighted a lack of congruence. This has led to vacancies, delays in justice delivery, and concerns about the judiciary’s independence. In this context, the proposal for an All India Judicial Service (AIJS), aimed at creating a centralized system for judicial appointments, gains significance.
The Current System and its Challenges
The Collegium system, as it stands, involves the Chief Justice of India (CJI) and four senior-most judges of the Supreme Court recommending names for appointment to the High Courts and the Supreme Court. While intended to safeguard judicial independence, it has faced criticism for lacking transparency and accountability. The executive’s role is limited to verifying the suitability of candidates, but it can return the names for reconsideration, leading to friction when disagreements arise.
- Lack of Transparency: The Collegium’s deliberations are not open to public scrutiny.
- Executive Concerns: The government argues that the Collegium system doesn’t adequately consider merit and diversity.
- Vacancy Crisis: Delays in appointments due to disagreements contribute to a significant number of vacancies in High Courts. As of December 2023, over 500 High Court judge positions were vacant (Source: PRS Legislative Research).
- Regional Imbalance: Concerns exist regarding the representation of all states in the higher judiciary.
The All India Judicial Service (AIJS) Proposal
The AIJS, first proposed in the 1960s and revisited multiple times, aims to create a unified judicial service at the district and subordinate court levels, recruited through a national-level examination. The idea is to establish a common standard of selection and training, and to ensure a more meritocratic and representative judiciary. The proposal has been consistently opposed by state governments, fearing a loss of autonomy over their judicial appointments.
Key Features of the Proposed AIJS
- Centralized Recruitment: A common examination conducted by a central agency (like the UPSC) for recruitment to the lower judiciary.
- All India Ranking: Candidates would be ranked nationally, allowing for allocation to states based on vacancies and preferences.
- Uniform Standards: Standardized syllabus and training for all judicial officers.
- Enhanced Mobility: Opportunities for officers to gain experience in different states.
Potential Benefits of AIJS
- Improved Quality: A rigorous, centralized selection process could lead to a more competent and qualified judiciary.
- Reduced Regional Bias: National-level recruitment could promote diversity and representation from all states.
- Streamlined Process: A unified system could reduce delays and inefficiencies in judicial appointments.
- Enhanced Accountability: A more transparent and merit-based system could increase public trust in the judiciary.
Challenges and Concerns Regarding AIJS
- State Autonomy: States fear losing control over their judicial appointments, which they consider a matter of federalism.
- Language Barriers: A national-level examination could disadvantage candidates from non-English speaking backgrounds.
- Infrastructure Constraints: States may lack the infrastructure to accommodate a large influx of AIJS officers.
- Implementation Difficulties: Reaching a consensus among all states on the AIJS framework has proven challenging.
AIJS and the Congruence Issue
While the AIJS primarily addresses the lower judiciary, its successful implementation could indirectly address the congruence issue at the higher levels. By creating a strong pool of talented judicial officers at the district level, it could provide a wider and more qualified base for future appointments to the High Courts. This could potentially reduce the reliance on the Collegium system and allow for a more collaborative approach between the judiciary and the executive in identifying suitable candidates. However, it doesn’t directly address the concerns regarding appointments to the Supreme Court, which remain within the purview of the Collegium.
| Issue | Current System (Collegium) | AIJS (Proposed) |
|---|---|---|
| Appointment Level | High Courts & Supreme Court | District & Subordinate Courts |
| Selection Process | Internal recommendation by Collegium | National-level examination |
| Transparency | Limited | Potentially higher |
| State Role | Limited – verification of names | Significant – allocation of officers |
Conclusion
The absence of congruence between the Supreme Court and the Union Government on judicial appointments is undoubtedly detrimental to the efficient functioning of the judicial system. The AIJS, while not a panacea, offers a potential solution for improving the quality and efficiency of the lower judiciary. However, its success hinges on addressing the concerns of state governments and ensuring a fair and inclusive implementation process. A collaborative approach, involving both the judiciary and the executive, is essential to resolve the broader issues of judicial appointments and safeguard the independence of the judiciary. A constitutional amendment might be necessary to fully implement the AIJS and address the concerns regarding federalism.
Answer Length
This is a comprehensive model answer for learning purposes and may exceed the word limit. In the exam, always adhere to the prescribed word count.