[All India Judicial Services] 8 States, 13 High Courts not in favour; 13 states yet to respond

Union Law Minister Kiren Rijiju in Parliament today revealed the sharp divergence in views among state governments and High Courts in implementing the All India Judicial Services (AIJS)..On the part of the Central government, it was expressed,"In Government's view, a properly framed All India Judicial Service is important to strengthen overall justice delivery system. This will give an opportunity for induction of suitably qualified fresh legal talent selected through a proper all-India merit selection system as well as address the issue of social inclusion by enabling suitable representation to marginalized and deprived sections of society.".However, as is evident from the data in the response, states and High Courts are not on the same page, bringing to light the complexities of introducing pan-India reform in a quasi-federal polity..Answering a question in the Lok Sabha posed by Members of Parliament Bidyut Mahato and Adoor Prakash, Rijiju said that constitution of the AIJS has been discussed in multiple meetings and forums in the last few years. The last of these was on February 22 this year, before the Parliamentary Committee on the Welfare of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (SCs/STs)."In view of the existing divergence of opinion amongst the stakeholders, the Government is engaged in a consultative process with the stakeholders to arrive at a common ground," the reply read..Data shared in the annexures show that only two state governments - Haryana and Mizoram - outrightly support the AIJS concept. Eight states, namely Arunachal Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Meghalaya, Nagaland, and Punjab, are in favour of the same. Five states - Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Manipur, Orissa and Uttarakhand - wanted changes to the proposal floated by the Centre. Thirteen state governments have not replied to the proposal.The states cited ground realities for their opposition to AIJS, with Arunachal Pradesh saying that the proposal may not suit a tribal state, while Maharashtra only favours such recruitment at the Judicial Magistrate First Class Level. Five states disagree on some of the terms like the age and experience requirements..Only the High Courts of Sikkim and Tripura prefer the creation of an AIJS. Thirteen High Courts, including those of Bombay, Delhi, Calcutta and Madras, are against it. Six High Courts wanted changes to the proposal, while two are yet to give a response.The Patna High Court, in opposition to the move, said that judicial services cannot be compared to civil services, while the High Courts of Punjab & Haryana and Calcutta said that the AIJS would be against federalism. Other High Courts differed on the terms and extent of vacancies from the Bar that could be filled via the AIJS. The Madhya Pradesh High Court had said in 2014 that the full court would debate the matter, but the same has not materialised. .[Read reply]