A nationwide debate has emerged over the proposed All India Judicial Service (AIJS), weighing its potential to reform judicial recruitment against concerns of federal overreach and systemic disruption.
NEW DELHI: The proposal to establish an All India Judicial Service (AIJS) has been under discussion for decades, aimed at reforming the recruitment of district-level judges in India. Though the concept traces its roots to the 14th Law Commission Report in 1958, it has seen limited progress due to structural, political, and federal concerns. The 42nd Constitutional Amendment in 1976 amended Article 312 to allow for the creation of AIJS by Parliament, laying the legal groundwork, but implementation remains stalled.
Historical and Legal Background
Despite being empowered constitutionally, successive governments and judiciary bodies have struggled to reach a consensus. The Supreme Court, in the landmark 1993 case of All India Judges Association v. Union of India, supported AIJS in principle, emphasising uniformity in recruitment standards. More recently, the NITI Aayog in its “Strategy for New India @75” reiterated the need for AIJS to tackle delays in recruitment and case backlogs. Nonetheless, multiple High Courts and State Governments have opposed the idea, citing concerns over autonomy, language, and local representation.
Existing Judicial Appointment Mechanism
Currently, appointments to the subordinate judiciary are governed by Articles 233 and 234 of the Constitution. These empower State Governors, in consultation with their respective High Courts, to appoint judges through State Judicial Services Examinations. These are conducted independently by State Public Service Commissions or High Courts, resulting in a fragmented and inconsistent system across the country.
The Proposed AIJS Framework
The envisioned AIJS would function similarly to other All India Services like the IAS or IPS, with recruitment conducted by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC). A centralised exam would be the gateway to judicial appointments across all States and Union Territories. The aim is to introduce uniform standards, transparency, and a broader talent pool, thereby enhancing the quality and diversity of the judiciary.
India’s judiciary is in the grip of a serious human resource crisis. As of 2023, there are over 4,000 unfilled judicial positions in the lower courts. This has led to a cascading effect: an alarming backlog of more than 5 crore cases is pending across various levels of the judiciary. This situation not only erodes public confidence in the justice delivery system but also prolongs justice to the point where it risks becoming meaningless.
The existing recruitment process, carried out individually by states, is often irregular and delayed, leading to large-scale vacancies. A centrally managed All India Judicial Service (AIJS), akin to the UPSC model for civil services, can introduce regular, timely, and transparent recruitment, ensuring that vacancies do not cripple the functioning of the lower judiciary.
Enhancing Diversity and Meritocracy
One of the major criticisms of the current judicial appointments process—particularly in the subordinate judiciary—is that it is not sufficiently inclusive. There are instances where judicial posts are cornered by specific families or legal dynasties, making it difficult for first-generation lawyers, particularly from marginalized communities, to gain access to judicial careers.
The opaque nature of the Collegium system at the higher judiciary and the inconsistency in State-level recruitment processes have contributed to the exclusion of deserving candidates. AIJS could help counter this by instituting a uniform, merit-based, and exam-oriented selection process, allowing talent from all corners of the country—irrespective of socio-economic background—to enter the judicial services.
Opening Pathways for Career Progression
Currently, less than 25% of district judges are promoted to High Court positions. This narrow promotional pipeline stifles ambition and limits diversity in higher courts. AIJS could act as a gateway to identify and groom young, meritorious candidates from across India, offering them not just a job but a structured judicial career path that can culminate in constitutional courts.
A streamlined, centrally managed judicial service could serve as a robust feeder system to the High Courts, and eventually the Supreme Court, ensuring that the higher judiciary draws from a broader and more diverse talent pool.
ALSO READ: “Judges Should Be Selected Through Exams Like IAS Officers”: President Droupadi Murmu
Boosting India’s Ease of Doing Business
A well-functioning judiciary is not just a matter of civil rights—it’s a cornerstone of economic growth. Delays in contract enforcement, property disputes, and corporate litigation severely impact India’s Ease of Doing Business rankings and discourage foreign investment.
AIJS can aid in establishing a professional, efficient, and accountable judicial workforce capable of disposing of cases in a time-bound manner. This would go a long way in boosting investor confidence, reducing transaction costs, and improving the overall economic climate of the country.
Comparative International Practices: Learning from Global Models
United States
The US follows a dual system: federal judges are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate, ensuring political accountability at the national level. State-level judicial appointments vary—some are elected by the public, others are appointed through commissions or gubernatorial selection. This system promotes localized control, but also integrates merit and public scrutiny in judicial appointments.
United Kingdom
The Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) in the UK serves as an independent body that conducts transparent recruitment for judicial offices. It uses a combination of written tests, structured interviews, and background vetting to ensure that only the most qualified individuals are selected. The system is praised for its openness, diversity, and integrity.
Singapore
Singapore has pioneered the Integrated Case Management System (ICMS), a fully digital framework that enhances court efficiency. Combined with robust judicial training and recruitment, it ensures minimal pendency and swift justice delivery—something India could emulate through a digitally enabled AIJS framework.
United States (ADR Model)
Another innovation worth noting is the mandatory use of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) in civil cases in the US. It significantly reduces the burden on courts and offers speedy resolutions. A well-trained AIJS cadre could be sensitized and equipped to promote similar innovations in India, especially at the grassroots level.
Challenges in Implementing AIJS: The Federal Dilemma
Threat to Judicial Independence
High Courts currently enjoy significant autonomy over subordinate judiciary appointments under Article 233 of the Constitution. A centralised recruitment authority might be perceived as a threat to judicial independence, particularly if it comes under the purview of the executive. Judges and legal experts have repeatedly cautioned against creating a system that could open the door to politicisation of the judiciary.
Federalism and State Autonomy
Several State Governments, especially those with regional parties, have strongly opposed AIJS, fearing a dilution of their constitutional powers. Judicial recruitment is deeply tied to local governance and law enforcement priorities. Imposing a centralised mechanism without adequate State consultation undermines the federal structure enshrined in the Constitution.
Quotas and Social Equity
Most states follow customised reservation policies for OBCs, SCs, STs, and other regional communities. A one-size-fits-all AIJS could disrupt state-specific affirmative action, potentially marginalising candidates who would have qualified under State norms but are left out due to the absence of region-specific quotas.
Language and Cultural Competence
Trial court proceedings are often conducted in regional languages, and judges are expected to have an intimate understanding of local customs and laws. A judge appointed through AIJS, hailing from a different linguistic and cultural background, may find it difficult to adapt, affecting the quality of justice delivery.
Bureaucratization Risks
Another major concern is the potential over-centralization and rigidity of a nationalised system. A large bureaucratic setup may become slow, impersonal, and unresponsive to local judicial needs, thus negating the benefits of a centralized recruitment system.
ALSO READ: OTV Foresight 2025: Ex-CJI DY Chandrachud Advocates for All India Judicial Service
The Way Forward: Toward a Balanced Solution
Building Consensus
AIJS cannot be a top-down imposition. The Centre must initiate a sustained dialogue with High Courts, State Governments, and the Bar Councils. Judicial reforms of this magnitude require institutional consensus and cooperative federalism. Only a widely accepted and democratically debated model can succeed in a diverse country like India.
Transparent and Accountable Recruitment
Whether or not AIJS is implemented in its purest form, there is a pressing need to reform the current Collegium and state-level systems. Introducing structured exams, objective evaluation, and interviews can increase transparency. Merit-based recruitment must be accompanied by social justice safeguards.
Judicial Oversight and Training
To preserve judicial independence, an oversight mechanism led by the Supreme Court or an independent constitutional body could be established to monitor recruitment, training, and ethics. Furthermore, AIJS recruits must undergo region-specific language and law training, ensuring they can serve effectively wherever they are posted.
A Hybrid Model for Balanced Reform
A viable compromise could be a hybrid model, where recruitment is conducted centrally, but postings, promotions, and training are managed by State High Courts. This would ensure that judges are selected on the basis of national standards, but administered in a decentralised, locally sensitive manner—striking the right balance between efficiency and federalism.
The All India Judicial Service represents a bold and necessary reform in India’s justice delivery mechanism. While its potential benefits—transparency, diversity, efficiency—are undeniable, the constitutional, federal, and cultural sensitivities surrounding its implementation must not be ignored.
The goal should not be to enforce uniformity for its own sake, but to create a system that upholds justice, inclusivity, and independence. With careful planning, broad consultation, and a willingness to innovate, AIJS can become a catalyst for judicial excellence in 21st-century India.
READ MORE REPORTS ON ALL INDIA JUDICIAL SERVICES
FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE