Headline
The AIJS plan faces problems in India Amid calls for centralized judicial recruitment.
Summary
Despite ongoing calls to establish the All India Judicial Services (AIJS) to centralize judicial recruitment and address vacancies, serious challenges stop its implementation. Main concerns include judicial independence, lack of local language proficiency, and the need for parliamentary legislation. Judges, advocates, and policymakers continue to debate whether AIJS is the reply to the chronic shortage in India’s judiciary.
Key Facts
- Case Name: Re Central Selection Mechanism for Subordinate Judiciary (Supreme Court, 2018)
- Judges: Supreme Court of India , various justices involved over years of debate
- The AIJS plan has been under consideration since 1958, supported by Article 312 of the Indian Constitution.
- The current structure leaves over 5,300 district and subordinate court vacancies across India.
- Problems include lack of regional language knowledge and serious influence from central appointments.
- Senior advocates Sidharth Luthra and Kapil Sibal, along with Bharat Chugh, have expressed concerns over AIJS’s potential to erode local knowledge and judicial independence.
Legal Insights
AIJS objective is to centralize judicial appointments akin to the civil services. However, there are legal reservations about whether a centrally appointed judge would maintain independence from central government influence. Many plans and proposals like a National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) and substitutes for rigorous state-level exams have also emerged.
Impact
If implemented, AIJS could standardize recruitment and reduce district court vacancies. Yet, critics warn that centralization could compromise the freedom and local cultural understanding important to effective justice delivery in diverse Indian states.
Why It Matters
The AIJS debate highlights broader issues in the judiciary, from judicial independence to practical recruitment challenges. A solution is to address delays and backlogs, but it needs balancing efficiency with respect for India’s federal structure and judicial autonomy.
Source:
