Highlights

• Recruitment to the lower judiciary has been under public scrutiny due to its failure to fill almost a quarter (23%) of vacancies that persist.
• The recruitment process of district judges is now the subject matter of a public interest litigation filed in the Supreme Court.
• The matter has now come to a standstill given opposition by States to a centralised selection mechanism for judges.
• This is not the first time that the Supreme Court has tried to streamline the examination process for the lower judiciary.
• In Malik Mazhar v. U.P. Public Service Commission (2008), it highlighted the importance of a prescribed time-schedule for judicial service examinations and laid down stage-wise time lines for lower judicial appointments

However, such a benchmark has three problems.

• First, the rationale behind arriving at this timeline is unclear.
• Second, it is an inaccurate benchmark to measure performance as it does not consider different sanctioned strengths and State resources in conducting such exams.
• Third, strict adherence to such timelines affects aspirants.

Way forward

• While the idea of a definite timeline is undisputedly a good one, it should be flexible to suit the administrative and resource capacities of different States.
• The Malik Mazhar guidelines could have easily ensured this by prescribing a standard which could be subject to State modifications rather than making them fixed.
• Currently, States can deviate from this timeline only by making an application to the Supreme Court. This curbs their flexibility. Further, and more importantly, the court needs to adopt a more data-driven, methodological basis for such a timeline.

Source: The Hindu