All India Judicial Service

Polity & Governance glossary

Also called: AIJS · Topic: Justice Delivery: Subordinate Courts, Tribunals, Legal Aid and Judicial Reforms · NCERT: Beyond NCERT

Meaning

The All India Judicial Service (AIJS) is a proposed national service for district judges. Judges would be picked through one all-India merit exam, like the IAS and IPS, and then posted to the states. Parliament can create it under Art. 312 (added by the 42nd Amendment, 1976) only after the Rajya Sabha passes a resolution by a special majority.

It matters because it sets two goals against each other. One is better talent and fairer selection in the lower courts. The other is the federalism (power shared between the Union and the states) built into Arts. 233-235. States and High Courts are still divided on it [1].

Explanation

Today's system: state-run judicial services

  • Each state recruits its own judges today.
  • Art. 233: the Governor appoints district judges in consultation with the High Court.
  • Art. 234: other judicial officers are appointed under rules made with the State Public Service Commission and the High Court.
  • Art. 235: the High Court controls subordinate courts (the courts below the High Court), including postings, promotions and discipline.
  • Art. 236: defines "district judge".
  • Art. 237: lets these rules apply to magistrates as well.
  • An AIJS would move district-judge recruitment from the state level to the national level.

How an AIJS can be created: the Art. 312 procedure

Step What happens Majority needed
1 The Rajya Sabha passes a resolution saying the service is needed "in the national interest" Two-thirds of members present and voting (a special majority)
2 Parliament passes a law creating the service Simple majority in each House (an ordinary law)
3 The law may change Chapter VI of Part VI (Arts. 233-237) to fit the new service (Art. 312(4)) It is not treated as a constitutional amendment under Art. 368
  • Why the Rajya Sabha decides first:
  • The Rajya Sabha represents the states.
  • A national service takes away some state power.

  • So the states' House must agree first.

  • The Lok Sabha has no role in the Step 1 resolution.

Limits on the service

  • Art. 312(3): the AIJS cannot include any post below district judge.
  • Civil judges and magistrates stay with the states.

  • So the AIJS would cover only the top level of the district courts.

  • The High Court keeps its role: the law would have to adjust Arts. 233-237, not delete the High Court's control under Art. 235.

Arguments for and against

For Against
Brings in young, bright talent through a national exam Conflicts with Arts. 233-235, which give control to the states and High Courts. Some see it as a blow to federalism
Sets one national standard of training and quality District courts work in the local language. Judges must also know local laws and customs
Adds social diversity through reservation [1] State judicial officers fear fewer chances of promotion to district judge
Fills vacancies faster with a regular, predictable recruitment cycle States and High Courts remain divided [1]

In the Constitution and practice

  • Constitutional base:
  • Art. 312 deals with all-India services.
  • The 42nd Amendment (1976) added the judicial service to it.

  • The same amendment also added Art. 39A (a Directive Principle asking the State to ensure equal justice and free legal aid). An AIJS is one way to work towards that goal.

  • Who recommended it:

  • Law Commission, 14th Report (1958): on reform of judicial administration. It supported an AIJS.
  • Law Commission, 116th Report (1986): specifically on forming an AIJS.

  • All India Judges Association v. Union of India (1992): the Supreme Court asked the government to consider an AIJS.

  • What has happened in practice:

  • November 2012: the Committee of Secretaries approved a full proposal for an AIJS [1].
  • April 2013: the Conference of Chief Ministers and Chief Justices of High Courts said the issue needed more discussion [1].
  • Present status: states and High Courts disagree, so the Union government says there is no consensus yet [1].

  • Government's view: a well-designed AIJS would strengthen justice delivery. It would bring in fresh legal talent through all-India merit selection and give fair representation to marginalised and deprived sections [1].

  • Result so far: the Rajya Sabha has passed no Art. 312 resolution and no AIJS has been created. District judges are still recruited state by state under Arts. 233-234.

Don't confuse with

  • State judicial services (Arts. 233-234): these exist today and are run by each state with its High Court. They cover all levels, including civil judges and magistrates. The AIJS would cover only district judges and above (Art. 312(3)).
  • Existing all-India services (IAS, IPS): they already work. The AIJS is only proposed. Its power was added to Art. 312 by the 42nd Amendment (1976), but no law has been made under it.
  • Constitutional amendment under Art. 368: an AIJS law can change Arts. 233-237 by a simple majority in each House, and Art. 312(4) says this does not count as an Art. 368 amendment.
  • Art. 249 resolution: the Rajya Sabha also uses a two-thirds (present and voting) resolution here, but its purpose is different. It lets Parliament make laws on a State List subject in the national interest. An Art. 312 resolution is for creating a new all-India service.

Prelims Hooks

  • Art. 312(3): an AIJS cannot include any post below district judge. Civil judges and magistrates are outside it.
  • Art. 312 needs a Rajya Sabha resolution passed by two-thirds of members present and voting. A trap: it is not "two-thirds of total membership", and the Lok Sabha plays no part in the resolution.
  • A law creating the AIJS can change Arts. 233-237 without counting as an amendment under Art. 368 (Art. 312(4)).
  • 42nd Amendment (1976): added the judicial service to Art. 312, and also added Art. 39A.
  • Report–subject pairs: 116th Report (1986) = forming an AIJS. The 14th Report (1958) also supported it. All India Judges Association (1992) = the Supreme Court asked the government to consider an AIJS.
  • Status: the Committee of Secretaries approved a proposal (November 2012). The CMs–Chief Justices Conference (April 2013) wanted more discussion. There is no consensus yet [1].

Mains Points

  • AIJS and federalism:
  • The promise: a national merit service offers talent, one national standard and social inclusion [1].
  • The cost: it weakens state and High Court control under Arts. 233-235. It creates language problems in district courts and hurts the promotion hopes of state officers.

  • Middle path: an all-India exam with state cadres, local-language training, and a fixed share of posts kept for promoted state officers.

  • Consensus before law:

  • The Art. 312 route is built to need the states' agreement, through the Rajya Sabha resolution.

  • With states and High Courts still divided [1], the way forward is consultation through forums like the CMs–Chief Justices Conference (2013), not a Union-driven push.

  • Part of wider reform:

  • An AIJS alone cannot end pendency (the backlog of cases waiting in courts). It needs to go with more judges (120th Report), better infrastructure and case management.
  • Together these serve the Art. 39A goal of equal justice for all.

Related concepts

Read more

Sources

  1. 1PIB: "All India Judicial Service"pib.gov.in · tier 1