7.3. Arguments against AIJS

♤ Issue of differences in laws across states.

♤ Difference in local languages and dialects.

♤ Mismanagement of legal education by Bar Council and UGC. Except for a few national law schools, others do not prioritize the legal education too much.

♤ Low pay is a big issue. Despite an effort by the Supreme Court to ensure uniformity in pay

scales across States in the All India Judges’ Association case, it is still very low.

♤ Fewer avenues for growth, promotion and limited avenues for career advancement.

♤ Low district judge representation in the High Courts, as less than a third of seats in the High Courts is filled by judges from district cadre. The rest are appointed directly from the Bar.

♤ It will increase the competition and it will be difficult from less privileged background to enter the profession.

♤ Legal education would be commercialized and aid coachings.

♤ Currently, the judges of subordinate courts are appointed by the governor in consultation with the High Court which will not be so if AIJS is implemented. Hence, it will go against the Independence of Judiciary as some other body will have a control in appointment and integration because in the judiciary, higher level controls and evaluates lower level.

Hence, it is argued that without addressing these identifiable lacunae, any new reform will not make a difference. A career judicial service will make the judiciary more accountable, more professional, and arguably, also more equitable. This can have far-reaching impact on the quality of justice and on people’s access to justice as well.