Don’t Sell This Injudicious Plan

Context: Centralising Judiciary Recruitments in India has so many concerns that needs to be addressed.

Challenges associated with AIJS

• None of its patrons assessed the merits of the proposal adequately: Most relied on anecdotes to support the larger idea of a centralised judicial service.
• Objective of AIJS mostly finds backing in rhetoric and political prattle rather than in empirical evidence: The objective of introducing AIJS was to address the issue of vacancies in judicial system.
• Recent analysis reveals that only certain states account for majority of these vacancies, while most are able to efficiently recruit judges in these cadres.
• Deeper systemic issues around poor career growth and remuneration prospects in lower judiciary remain unaddressed.
• Language barriers: A judicial officer lacking proficiency in local language may result in irreversible and damaging errors affecting litigants.
• A judicial officer needs a thorough understanding of the language and ability to express it, and for this, they must be familiar with the local languages, which will burden the state judicial academies.
• Centralising judiciary recruitment will interfere with the independence and federated structure of the Indian judiciary.
• Busting inclusion argument: AIJS is needed to bring about social inclusion by enabling representation to marginalised communities is not supported by evidence.
• Most states already provide for reservations for people from OBC, SC, ST, women and persons with disabilities categories.