Only 2 states and 2 high courts are dedicated to all-India judicial service: Ministry of Law of the Union.
Only two states and two high courts are dedicated to all-India judicial service: Ministry of Law of the Union.
According to the Central government’s proposal to “strengthen the overall justice delivery system,” the AIJS is a national-level recruiting process for district judges along the lines of the Union Public Services Commission.
According to the government`s notification to Parliament on Friday, a majority of states and high courts across the country have expressed opposition to the Centre’s proposal to establish the All India Judicial Services, citing concerns about causing chaos and instability in the administration of justice, issues with the local language, and the erosion of the federal structure of the Constitution. The notion of forming the All India Judicial Services was met with opposition from tribes, issues with the local language, and the erosion of the federal framework established by the Constitution.
According to figures released by the Federal Ministry of Justice, only two state governments, Haryana and Mizoram, and two higher courts, the Tripura High Court and the Sikkim High Court support the government’s 2015 proposal to create AIJS.
According to the Central government’s proposal to “strengthen the overall justice delivery system,” the AIJS is a national-level recruiting process for district judges along the lines of the Union Public Services Commission.
States, on the other hand, retain control over the selection of judges to fill positions in the lower judiciary, as provided by the United States Constitution. According to vacancies that occur, states currently conduct their examinations in consultation with the high courts. The AIJS has been criticized as a diluting of the state’s authority.
Putting the plan on the agenda of a meeting of law ministers from all states and union territories, which is expected to take place shortly to address judicial infrastructure in the lower judiciary, is expected to give the contentious reform a new lease of life. Kiren Rijiju, the Union Minister for Law, had stated in November that a new attempt would be made to bring states on board with the initiative.
Eight states, including Arunachal Pradesh, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Meghalaya, Nagaland, and Punjab, have written to the government to express their opposition to the establishment of AIJS, according to a written response to a question about whether the government faces opposition from states. While five states have asked for revisions to the federal government’s 2015 proposal, thirteen states have chosen to remain silent.
The government responded that the proposal to establish a common judicial services “would not be the right proposition and would create chaos and instability in the administration of justice” because “Arunachal Pradesh is purely a tribal state with its own peculiar and distinct tribal customs and ethos, and the modes of rendering justice vary from tribe to tribe.”
While Bihar has requested “significant” changes, Chhattisgarh “wants only 15% of vacancies at the level of Additional District Judge and above to be filled through AIJS,” and Orissa is “insisting on a minimum of ten years of experience and an upper age limit of forty years,” according to the government, Bihar has requested “significant” changes to the proposal.
According to the government’s high court records, only two high courts in India, Sikkim, and Tripura, have ruled in favor of AIJS. Thirteen higher courts did not agree with the idea, six higher courts (Allahabad, Chhattisgarh, Himachal Pradesh, Meghalaya, Uttarakhand, and Manipur) requested amendments to the proposal, and the Gauhati and Madhya Pradesh High Courts did so. It was silent.
According to the government, the AIJS has been opposed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court, the Bombay High Court, the Delhi High Court, the Gujarat High Court, the Karnataka High Court, the Kerala High Court, the Madras High Court, the Patna High Court, the Punjab and Haryana High Court, the Calcutta High Court, the Jharkhand High Court, the Rajasthan High Court, and the Orissa High Court.
While the Bombay High Court relied on a 2014 full court decision that rejected AIJS, the Calcutta and Punjab and Haryana High Courts argued that AIJS dilutes the federal system of the United States of America.
As the All India Judicial Service is created, it will have a severely detrimental impact on India’s federal structure. An “All India Judicial Service” with disciplinary power by the President (Central Government) “completely obstructs and deprives the Punjab and Haryana High Court of its constitutional authority over the control and supervision of District Courts,” as stated by the high court, according to the government.
According to documents submitted to the Supreme Court, the states of West Bengal, Kerala, Andhra Pradesh, and Uttarakhand opposed AIJS. In particular, they were concerned that the proposal would not only dilute the impact on the structure of the federal government, but it would also fail to address the structural problems facing lower courts, such as lower wages and reduced chances of promotion to higher justice.
edited and proofread by nikita sharma
