Question

Statement: The 42nd Amendment Act of 1976 made provisions for the creation of an All India Judicial Service.
Assertion: The All India Judicial Service has been implemented and includes posts not inferior to that of a district judge.

Which of the following is correct?

• A. Both the Statement and Assertion are true, and the Assertion is the correct explanation of the Statement.
• B. Both the Statement and Assertion are true, but the Assertion is not the correct explanation of the Statement.
• C. The Statement is true, but the Assertion is false.
• D. The Statement is false, but the Assertion is true.

Answer 1

Answer:

C. The Statement is true, but the Assertion is false.

All India Judicial Service (AIJS)

• The All India Judicial Service (AIJS) is a proposed centralized recruitment system for judicial officers at the level of District Judges and below.
• Its primary objective is to ensure a uniform standard of recruitment and selection for the lower judiciary across all states in India.
• Currently, the recruitment of judicial officers at the district level and below is carried out independently by individual High Courts and State Public Service Commissions.

Constitutional Basis and the 42nd Amendment Act, 1976

• The power to create an All India Service is vested in the Parliament under Article 312 of the Indian Constitution.
• Article 312(1) states that if the Rajya Sabha passes a resolution supported by not less than two-thirds of the members present and voting, Parliament can by law provide for the creation of one or more All India Services common to the Union and the States.
• The 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act of 1976 played a crucial role by amending Article 312. Before this amendment, Article 312 referred to All India Services generally. The 42nd Amendment specifically added the phrase "including an All-India Judicial Service" to Article 312(1).
• This amendment provided the constitutional framework for the establishment of an AIJS, making the Statement correct.

Status of AIJS Implementation

• Despite the constitutional provision made by the 42nd Amendment, the All India Judicial Service has not yet been implemented.
• This means that the Assertion, which claims the AIJS has been implemented, is false.
• If implemented, the AIJS would recruit judicial officers for posts at the entry-level and mid-level, generally not inferior to that of a District Judge, but it would not include High Court or Supreme Court judges.

Reasons for Non-Implementation and Key Challenges

• The primary hurdle to the implementation of AIJS is the lack of consensus among States and High Courts.
• States' Concerns: Many states are apprehensive that AIJS would infringe upon their constitutional autonomy in managing judicial appointments and might affect their existing reservation policies. Concerns also exist regarding language barriers, as judicial proceedings often require proficiency in regional languages.
• High Courts' Concerns: High Courts often perceive AIJS as an encroachment on their constitutional power over the district judiciary, as outlined in Articles 233, 234, and 235 of the Constitution. They prefer to maintain control over the appointment, promotion, and discipline of judicial officers under their jurisdiction.
• The vast linguistic diversity across Indian states poses a practical challenge for a centralized examination and recruitment process for judicial posts.

Arguments in Favor of AIJS

• Merit-Based Selection: It is argued that AIJS would ensure a more meritocratic selection process, attracting brighter legal talent to the judiciary.
• Uniformity and Standardization: It would lead to uniform standards of recruitment, training, and service conditions across the country, potentially enhancing the quality of the judiciary.
• Addressing Vacancies: AIJS could help in efficiently filling the substantial number of vacancies in the subordinate judiciary nationwide.
• Diversity and Inclusivity: A centralized examination might promote greater diversity in the judiciary by attracting candidates from various regions and backgrounds.
• Efficiency and Transparency: A centralized, transparent process could streamline recruitment and reduce scope for regional biases or inconsistencies.

Relevant Committees and Judicial Observations

• Various bodies, including the Law Commission of India (in its 116th, 196th, and 245th reports), have recommended the creation of AIJS.
• The First National Judicial Pay Commission (Shetty Commission) also supported the idea of an AIJS.
• The Supreme Court of India, in landmark judgments such as All India Judges' Association v. Union of India (1993 and 2002), has urged the Union Government to consider the establishment of an AIJS to improve judicial standards and efficiency.