The historical issue of the quality of judges in the district judiciary has resurfaced before the Supreme Court of India. In a recent case, an aspiring candidate has challenged the Andhra Pradesh Judicial Services Rules prescribing practice at the Bar as an eligibility criterion for the judicial services examinations (JSE). The Bar Council of India (BCI) has filed an impleading application arguing that the practice requirement is essential, and that the lack of it is one of the reasons for poor quality of judges in the district judiciary. Until 2002, when it was revoked by the Supreme Court in the All India Judges case, it was compulsory for a candidate to have practised for at least three years to be eligible for JSE. The reversal paved the way for fresh law graduates, with no experience at the Bar, to enter the district judiciary.
The district judiciary, the first interface with the judicial system for millions of litigants, has been in a blind spot as far as judicial reforms are concerned. The functioning of the district judiciary comes under scrutiny only when the process or outcomes in certain high-profile cases are unpalatable on account of the quality of judgments, incorrect application of law or liberal granting of adjournments. Beyond such cases, only scant attention is paid to the capacity or the quality of judges in this tier of the judiciary.
ALSO READ: Free Or Fettered?
Presently, the district judiciary accounts for a staggering 3.45 crore of the overall 4.6 crore pending cases. Needless to say, this situation demands a competent pool of judges to handle the backlog as well as the fresh supply of cases. Entry-level judges adjudicate on a plethora of matters, both civil and criminal, having serious repercussions on life, liberty and property of ordinary individuals. The system needs these judges to have strong managerial skills and legal acumen. Are the existing recruitment process and the judicial system itself designed to attract such candidates into its fold?
In the recent debate, the quality of judges has come to be anchored to the age factor. While on one side, younger candidates are automatically dismissed as being incapable of fulfilling the system’s needs (as done by the BCI recently), on the other, there is a concern that older candidates might be viewing judiciary as their last career resort after having failed at the Bar (as opined in several Law Commission Reports and in the All India Judges case). Both sides have unfortunately missed the woods for the trees. The focus has always been on catering to the needs of the system, with no regard to aspirations of a potential candidate. What are the various factors that shape a law graduate’s career decisions? The judicial system needs to be aware of and cater to these factors to be able to attract the right candidates.
The first factor that needs to be addressed is the manner in which JSEs are currently conducted across different states. Lack of consistency in examination models, non-standardised evaluation schemes and an opaque interview process are deterring factors for young law graduates who now have a plethora of other more predictable and lucrative careers to choose from. The recruitment cycles are infamously erratic and slow. Over the past 10 years, one recruitment cycle for civil judges (jr) posts has taken on an average 326.27 days in states that follow a three-tier recruitment cycle.
ALSO READ: The Supreme Court A Long Political Journey
Secondly, though appointment in the district judiciary does offer a degree of stability, the prospects of career growth are rather unsettling, especially in contrast to peers in law firms or litigation careers. After having successfully navigated a perplexing recruitment process, the judges are not rewarded in a manner commensurate with the responsibilities placed on them. Most of them are welcomed with a daily workload of hundreds of cases that call for both strong managerial skills as well as legal knowledge. However, owing to the lack of robust training due to multiple issues plaguing the state judicial academies, these judges often find their initial years daunting. In terms of growth, a handful of them may see themselves becoming district judges, while fewer become high court judges, and even so only with a few years to spare before retirement. Data released by the Department of Justice in September 2020 reveals that only 28 per cent of high court judges were promoted from the rank of district judge. Therefore, for most candidates, district judge may be the highest position they attain as career judges.
Myopic Reforms and Re-Adjustments
The proposed All India Judicial Service is being considered as a panacea that can help attract quality candidates to the judiciary from across the country. However, in the absence of empirical research to support its viability, it is likely to fail in achieving its objectives.
ALSO READ: Collegium Collateral Damage
Recently, the Maharashtra National Law University has commenced a five-year law programme on ‘Honours in Adjudication and Justicing’ dedicated entirely to train future career judges. While this does promise to have long-term benefits, certain practical concerns need to be addressed. For instance, the fee for this course (approximately Rs 10 lakh) is the same as for other undergraduate programmes. If graduates from this course are confined to the career option of becoming entry-level judges, the potential salary needs to be commensurate with at least the course fee, if not match the potential salary of graduates from a regular BA-LLB programme. At present, the revised monthly salary of around Rs 70,000 for a civil judge is around half of what is offered to an associate in a law firm.
It is clear that the current approach to recruiting judges is in dire need of an overhaul. Yet, before devising band-aid fixes, there is also a need to thoroughly understand the shortcomings in the judiciary as a workplace for judges. Once these shortcomings in terms of salary, training, prospects of career progression, quality of technology and staff support, are addressed, it will naturally attract the kind of candidates the system needs and the litigants deserve.
(Views are personal.)
ALSO READ
Deepika Kinhal is a senior resident fellow at the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy; Reshma Sekhar is a research fellow at the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy
