Soon, all-India entrance test for judges' appointments

Written By Sana Shakil | Updated: Oct 24, 2016, 07:20 AM IST

Chief Justice of India TS Thakur greets Prime Minister Narendra Modi

Chief Justice of India TS Thakur is likely to meet chief justices in all states to discuss the modalities of AIJS

The four-decade old plan of setting up an all-India service for appointment of judicial officers in the lower judiciary is finally taking shape. Sources in the law ministry said the issue of creation of an All India Judicial Service (AIJS) was discussed recently as part of the Centre's plan to bring judicial reforms. Chief Justice of India TS Thakur is likely to meet chief justices in all states to discuss the modalities of AIJS.

The plan of holding an all India entrance test for judges, as is done in case of Indian Administrative Services, is ostensibly being pushed by the law ministry in a bid to ensure regular appointment of judges in the lower judiciary, which is currently reeling under staff shortage.

According to latest statistics, as of June 30, there was a shortage of 5,111 judicial officers in the country's district courts, which have only 16,192 judges against the sanctioned strength of 21,303. Nearly three crore cases are pending in district courts across India. At present, judges for lower courts are mostly selected by High Courts or the State Public Service Commission of respective states.

Sources said the creation of AIJS will make the government instrumental in appointment of judges at the entry level. This is significant because every year, 60 per cent of vacancies in the High Courts are filled through promotion of lower court judges to High Courts, where the main recruitment happens through the Collegium system, in which the government has no say.

The government narrative is that since the case of appointments in higher judiciary is stuck, it is working towards strengthening the lower judiciary. The higher judiciary case is stuck because the government and judiciary have not been able to come on a common ground regarding finalising of a Memorandum of Procedure (MoP) for the Collegium.

Meanwhile, sources said Law Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad and senior officials from the ministry tried to build a strong case for AIJS in a meeting held with some judges a few weeks ago.

That things are moving forward for AIJS is also evident from a note prepared by the law ministry's justice department. The note, dated September 20, 2016, states: "The matter has been discussed at the highest level in the government and the judiciary. It has been decided that the Honourable Chief Justice of India would convene a meeting of the Chief Justices of the High Courts to arrive at a consensus on formation of AIJS."

Relations between the government and the judiciary strained after the Supreme Court struck down the government proposal to replace the Collegium system with the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) for appointments in higher judiciary.

Though the Apex Court had questioned the objectivity of its own Collegium system, it chose the Collegium over NJAC. The Supreme Court, however, asked the Centre to devise in consultation with the Chief Justice of India, an MoP for the Collegium, a task that remains pending.

It is pertinent to mention that various law commissions (1st, 8th, and 11th) had also suggested the creation of AIJS. Even the Supreme Court, in two of its judgments in 1991 and 1993, had recommended setting up of AIJS. In addition, Article 312 of the Constitution also talks about the creation of AIJS, which was also a part of the All India Conference of Chief Justices of High Courts and Chief Ministers meet in 2013 and 2015.

In November, 2012, a Committee of Secretaries chaired by the Cabinet Secretary had approved a "comprehensive proposal" for creation of the service. At the time, 18 high courts out of 24 had responded to the proposal, and most of them had opposed it. It will be interesting to see how the High Courts react to the present proposal which, according to sources, has been significantly tweaked to convince the judiciary that it would remain free of government control.