Delhi Judicial Service Recruitments 2015 – The storm rages on…

The Indian judiciary is not immune to allegations of impropriety. If there is one thing that the recent NJAC hearings have made clear, it is the visible discontent about the manner in which the higher judiciary has been functioning. More specifically, on appointments within the judiciary..The clamour is hard to miss – with a strong call for changing the manner of picking individuals who will sit in the top most courts of the country. Then there exists the concept of ‘uncle practice’ which is yet another salvo fired by the critics of the system, to demonstrate that justice has been reduced to a commodity that can be procured depending on the lawyer you engage. In legal circles, ‘uncle practice’ defines a situation whereby an advocate ends up practicing in the same place or forum where their close family member is a judge. The Indian legal system is not alien to such a practice where we often see kith and kin of serving judges practicing before the same forum that is headed by a family member..This trend has drawn increasing attention in recent times with elevations from the Bar to the Bench on the rise. However, it is not just the higher judiciary that is facing flak for not confirming to the tenets of transparency. Recruitments to the lower judiciary have been under the scanner for some time now, with the debate reaching a tipping point after the results of Delhi Judicial Services were announced in May this year..The DJS exam was held in July last year, pursuant to a notification that was issued after a period of three years. For this particular exam, a total of 9,033 candidates appeared for the Prelims. Out of these, 659 students cleared the Prelims and became eligible to write the Mains held in October 2014. When the results were published in May, it turned out that only 15 students had cleared the exam. Effectively, only 2% of those who had cleared the prelims were found suitable to appear for the interviews. This is a startling statistical figure, to say the least. What complicates matters is that some of candidates who failed to make it to the final lap had successfully cleared judicial exams in other states like Uttar Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, Haryana, Jharkhand etc. In fact, as Prashant Bhushan’s letter elaborated, some of them were judicial officers in these states..The obvious question then, is the DJS really that tough a nut to crack? Or is there more than what meets the eye? If events of the last few weeks are any indication, Prashant Bhushan and Union Law Minister Sadananda Gowda have chosen to believe the latter..Soon after discrepancies started coming to light, Prashant Bhushan addressed a letter to Delhi’s Chief Justice, G Rohini expressing certain reservations about the exam and evaluation methods. Bhushan’s letter also underlined the abysmally low number of successful candidates, and requested a fair re-evaluation. The matter took a political turn when Bhushan made the said letter public. Soon thereafter, Union Law Minister Sadananda Gowda wrote a letter to the Chief Justice of Delhi HC and personally requested her to look into the allegations surrounding the exam. Meanwhile, JD (U) Chief Sharad Yadav too jumped in the fray and wrote to Gowda seeking his timely intervention in the matter. In addition, an online petition was also floated by unsuccessful candidates, requesting a review into the results. While the status of this online representation remains unknown, a perusal of the online petition is certainly warranted..Entrance examinations have always faced their share of controversies; the ongoing CLAT dispute bears testimony to that. However, a controversy of this kind holds even more importance because of the impact it can have on the credibility of the judicial system. In his letter, Law Minister Gowda mentioned that daughters of two sitting Judges of the Delhi High Court had qualified; one of them topped the exam. This, argued Gowda, casts aspersions on the transparency of the exam. Since the exam is conducted under the auspices of the Delhi High Court, an occurrence like this, tends to be perceived as more than just a co-incidence. While vilifying the two candidates is unfair simply on the basis of their personal background, such incidents do raise valid doubts..So are we back to the same argument? Does it help to have “connections” or does merit alone suffice? The answer is a little more complex than a mere yes or a no. It is up to the people conducting these exams to stand up and be accountable..All of the representations made by various parties against the exam are bound by a common logic: an unfair recruitment process tarnishes the reputation of the institution and dents the morale of people who wish to be a part of it. The legal system of the country is severely crippled with backlog and absence of able judicial officers. So when exams produce questionable results, it only breeds further discontent and disgruntlement from aspirants. More so in a sector which is, even otherwise, being increasingly isolated by law firms and companies that offer cushy salaries to fresh law graduates. A re-evaluation or re-examination could be an immediate solution, providing some much needed respite. However the long term solution will need more concerted efforts. This includes ensuring the exam is held on an annual basis, effective evaluation methods and ensuring anonymity of the exam-takers so as to not induce any kind of personal bias..But the most important step of all would be to keep the entire scheme of judicial examinations, transparent and uninfluenced by any particular factor. Sources had also suggested that RTI queries on the results of these DJS had been evasive, inconclusive and most of them remain partially unanswered. This is the worst kind of message to give out during a time when judicial integrity is being put to the test, almost every other day. Perhaps it is time that the Chief Justice assumed accountability and conduct a fair and unbiased inquiry into the ruckus that has been DJS 2015. After all, this episode demands that it is looked into immediately and not ‘re-notified to the next date’; as is usually the case with some of the courtrooms in the High Court.