• The central government is preparing to give a fresh push to the establishment of an All India Judicial Service (AIJS) on the lines of the central civil services.


  • As early as 1961, a proposal for All India Judicial Service was first suggested at the Conference of the Chief Justice as a way to remove any room for judicial or executive intervention in appointments to the judiciary.
  • The proposal was shelved after some states and superior courts opposed it until 1976 when the Constitution was amended to establish an AIJS under Article 312.
  • The proposal was again presented by the governing UPA government in 2012, but the Bill was shelved again after opposition by a High Court Chief Justice who called this a violation of their rights.
  • An all-India judicial service will create a cadre of judges who can be appointed at the district’s courts level across the country.
  • The AIJS is an attempt to ensure that younger judges are promoted to the SC and HCs.
  • The recently struck down National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) by Supreme Court has raised the need for creation of an objective and transparent system of appointments in the judiciary system of India.


  • Huge vacancy of judges and postponement in hiring – There are presently around 7000 vacant positions in lower judiciary across the nation and pendency of 3 crore cases in lower judiciary primarily due to inordinate delay in holding regular exams by states.
  • Lack of correct, excellent judicial officials – The ever-continuing decline in their quality will delay delivery of justice, increase pendency of cases, impair quality of judgments, and in turn affect the competence of the higher judiciary as well.
  • Lack of price range with nation governments – State judicial offerings aren’t appealing to “pinnacle talent” because of low salaries, rewards, and reimbursement from state governments.
  • Lack of specialized nation schooling institutions – The award is a specialization that calls for modern-day schooling institutes and teachers, however, national institutes do now no longer permit such publicity to interns.
  • Discretion of a narrow body – The system of choosing an amazing choice is a tough activity and ought to now no longer be left to the discretion of some people (collegium) regardless of how sensible they are.
  • Timely recruitment – AIJS will allow a large number of judges to fill those vacancies in the lower judiciary through a trial across India. Applicants could be posted in states where more judges are needed to be selected through AIJS.
  • Better efficiency of the courts – The processing and the problem of the delay of cases would be eliminated with the timely hiring of judges for the lower judiciary in the district courts and subordinate courts through AIJS.
  • Improvement in the efficiency of judicial administration – AIJS would attract the best talents in the country and therefore could maintain high standards of judicial administration.
  • No more nepotism– The issue of corruption, nepotism, etc. that we notice in almost every selection process from now on, may decline. AIJS will lead to the appointment of quality judges, who have experience and have studied all types of cases, and public faith in the judiciary will be restored.
  • Promote national integration – AIJS will lead to the appointment of the best talents from other states in states with scarce resources.
  • Representation of the marginalized section – By following the reserve system in recruitment, underrepresented communities are represented in the judiciary.


  • Responsibility and transparency – A career in judicial service will make the judiciary more responsible, more professional, and possibly also more equitable.
  • It infuses objectivity in hiring – The open competition would provide objectivity in the hiring process of the judiciary by reducing the discretion of the selection panel.
  • Securing the best talent – AIJS will ensure a transparent and efficient recruitment method to attract the best talent in the Indian legal profession. The prospects for promotion to the superior courts, for the lower judiciary, at an early age would also increase, as they currently join at a much later age than Bar Association judges.
  • Uniformity throughout the country – The quality of adjudication and administration of justice would achieve uniformity throughout the country by eliminating differences at the state level in laws, practices, and standards.
  • Check case handling – The streamlined and objective recruitment process would ensure a regular flow of good quality judicial officers for vacant positions, reducing the handling of cases.
  • Representative character – AIJS will improve the representative character of the judiciary by hiring trained officials from underprivileged sectors of society, especially women and SC / ST.
  • Overall efficiency – A well-organized judicial service can attract talent from our law schools and young and well-informed judicial officers at the additional district judge level will make a difference. As ADJs and district judges, they can help the court system move faster and more efficiently.


  • Encroaching States Power – A centralised recruitment process is seen as an affront to federalism and an encroachment on the powers of states granted by the Constitution.
  • Wont Address Unique Issues – This is the main contention of several states, which have also argued that central recruitment would not be able to address the unique concerns that individual states may have.
    • Language and representation, for example, are key concerns highlighted by states.
    • Judicial business is conducted in regional languages, which could be affected by central recruitment.
  • Not Good for Local Reservation – Also, reservations based on caste, and even for rural candidates or linguistic minorities in the state, could be diluted in a central test.
  • Against Separation of Powers – The opposition is also based on the constitutional concept of the separation of powers. A central test could give the executive a foot in the door for the appointment of district judges, and dilute the say that High Courts have in the process.
  • Wont Address Structural Issues – The creation of AIJS will not address the structural issues plaguing the lower judiciary.
    • The issue of different scales of pay and remuneration has been addressed by the SC in the 1993 All India Judges Association case by bringing in uniformity across states.
    • Experts argue that increasing pay across the board and ensuring that a fraction of High Court judges are picked from the lower judiciary, may help better than a central exam to attract quality talent.


  • It is through an All-India judicial services exam performed by the UPSC with a view to maintain “excessive standards” in the judiciary.
  • In addition to providing an AIJS as an answer for judicial vacancies, it could be more prudent to research the motives and reasons for a huge variety of vacancies in poorly acting States.
  • AIJS is going through hurdles from the executive block and additionally from high courts, despite the fact that the Supreme Court has requested for AIJS twice.
  • Therefore, AIJS needs to be designed in a way to get rid of its shortcomings and it is able to be a powerful technique to the vacancy in judiciary.
  • Adequate judges may be made to be handiest if they’re recruited in huge energy through AIJS much like we see in the case of IAS, IPS, IFS, and different civil offerings.
  • Hence there needs to be no greater delay. Moreover, after the selection, a judicial provider officer may be furnished with enough education to address the job. A meritocratic judiciary is the want of the hour that is viable with an aggressive recruitment process.

Contact Us

    Enquire Now