A common test for lower judiciary is not a good idea
Such an examination will not only lead to elitism but also adversely affect diversity in the judicial system
The Centre recently suggested an examination on the lines of the National-Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET) for medical courses to select judicial officers for lower courts. But nine high courts have objected to the plan for such an exam. India has over 620 district courts and the appointments to the state judicial services (below the rank of district judge) are made by the governor in consultation with the State Public Service Commission and the high court. Of the three crore million pending court cases, over 80% are in the lower courts. There are approximately 5,000 vacancies in the subordinate judiciary, which has a sanctioned strength of 21,000 positions.
The SC bench, which supported the Centre’s plan, had dispelled apprehensions of the states and HCs that such a test would impinge on the federal structure as their role in appointments of lower judiciary would be taken away by a central agency. The court assured them that they are not introducing all-India judicial services. It said the national test would prepare a merit list of successful candidates and the state would be allowed to appoint judges as per their rules and reservation policies.
Strangely, however, the SC justified a centralised test in the name of foreign investment and observed that “we are trying to do a service to the nation. No progress can be made in the country if the judiciary is not efficient. No foreign investor would invest in the country if the judiciary is not efficient.” The new selection process was also justified by the court in the name of uniformity and to curb the instances of nepotism and favoritism. Everyone knows that allegations of ‘uncle syndrome’ are common about the appointments in the HCs and elevations to the SC under the collegiums system.
But a centralised test has inherent weaknesses: It promotes elitism and adversely affects diversity. Even in the US, it has been found that mostly rich, white and children of politically powerful families make to the common tests. Our judiciary already has poor representation of women, Dalits, minorities and candidates coming from rural background.
To say that NEET has been fully successful is premature. There have been allegations of paper leaks. Getting the test translated into various languages has been problematic. Testing proficiency in the local languages and knowledge of diverse local laws in one test will also be a Herculean task. If at all such a central test is to be introduced, national law universities would be better equipped to conduct it, not any other body.