• State-level resistance: According to Article 233, recruitment to the subordinate judiciary is the prerogative of the State. Removing the fundamental power of the states to make such rules and govern the appointment of district judges may violate the principles of federalism and the basic structure doctrine.
• Language and regional diversity: Judicial proceedings are conducted in regional languages in subordinate courts, which may be impacted by central recruitment. India showcases a rich tapestry of linguistic and cultural diversity. The recruitment of judges through the AIJS could result in a lack of representation for certain regions and linguistic groups. Further, the language of judgements and the quality of the same would be impacted due to the language barrier.
• Lack of local knowledge: The AIJS would recruit judges from across the country, which could result in a lack of local knowledge. Judges who are not familiar with the local culture, customs, and languages may struggle to understand the nuances of cases and make informed decisions.
• Constitutional Restriction: Clause 3 of Article 312 states that AIJS may not include a position lower than that of a district judge. As a result, the appointment of the judges, lower in rank than the district judge, through AIJS may face a constitutional challenge.
• Authority of the High Courts: The establishment of AIJS would erode the High Courts’ control over the subordinate judiciary, potentially jeopardising the judiciary’s independence.
• Unintended consequences: There is a risk that the AIJS could lead to unintended consequences, such as a lack of diversity in the judiciary or the politicisation of the recruitment process. These consequences could undermine the independence and impartiality of the judiciary.
• Unsuitable for Local Reservation: Reservations based on caste, and even for rural candidates or linguistic minorities in the state, may be diluted in a centralised test. As the centralised recruitment process would be based on the reservation criteria of the central government.
• Implementation challenges: The implementation of the AIJS would require significant administrative and logistical support. This would include the creation of a centralised recruitment and training system, as well as the allocation of resources to support the new system.
• Will Not Address Structural Issues: The establishment of AIJS would not address the structural problems like dilapidated state of judicial infrastructure at the lower judiciary level, lack of technological interventions, etc. that plague the lower judiciary.

While the All India Judicial Services has the potential to address some of the challenges facing the Indian judiciary, its implementation is not without significant limitations and challenges. Experts argue that increasing pay across the board and ensuring that a portion of High Court judges is chosen from the lower judiciary may help attract quality talent more effectively than a centralised exam. Any attempt to create an AIJS would need to carefully consider these above-mentioned limitations and develop strategies to mitigate the potential risks.

High Court’s Control Over Subordinate Courts

Article 235 outlines the governance of subordinate courts, establishing that oversight of district and subordinate courts resides with the High Court. This control includes control over posting and promotion or grant of leave in relation to persons in subordinate judicial service inferior to the rank of district judge. However, such persons have the right of appeal which can be exercised by them under the law regulating conditions of their service.

Jurisdiction and Structure of Subordinate Courts

The states define the organizational framework, authority, and terminology of the subordinate judiciary, leading to slight variations from one state to another. At the subordinate level, there are three categories of courts: Civil courts, Criminal courts, and Revenue courts. 

Civil courts

Structure

• District Court: Each district in the state contains a District and Sessions Court led by the district judge, who serves as the highest judicial authority within that district. This judge has original and appellate jurisdiction over both civil and criminal issues. When handling civil matters, they are referred to as the district judge, whereas they take on the title of sessions judge for criminal cases. 
• Courts of Subordinate Judges: Beneath the district judge, there exist Courts of Subordinate Judges (also termed sub-courts). These courts comprise (in ascending order) the Junior Civil Judge Court, Principal Junior Civil Judge Court, and Senior Civil Judge Court. The subordinate judge holds unlimited pecuniary authority over civil disputes.
• Munsiff courts: Positioned at the lowest tier on the civil side (i.e., subordinate to Courts of Subordinate Judges), these courts are headed by a munsiff. The munsiff has limited authority and addresses civil cases involving minimal financial stakes.

Jurisdiction

• Civil Courts handle civil disputes that arise between two or more individuals or parties concerning property, contract violations, divorce, or landlord-tenant conflicts. 
• Matters involving property rights, succession, ownership, and similar issues are under the jurisdiction of Civil Courts, which resolve these cases according to the Civil Procedure Code.

Criminal courts

Structure

1. Sessions Court: At the district level, the sessions judge presides over criminal matters. The sessions judge is empowered to impose any sentence, including life sentences and capital punishment (death penalty). However, any death sentence imposed by this judge requires confirmation from the High Court, irrespective of whether an appeal is filed.
2. Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate: This court ranks just below the sessions court within the criminal court hierarchy. The chief judicial magistrate adjudicates criminal cases punishable by imprisonment for up to seven years. 
3. Court of Judicial Magistrate: These courts represent the lowest level in the criminal hierarchy (i.e., subordinate to the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate). The judicial magistrate addresses criminal offenses that carry a penalty of imprisonment for up to three years.

Jurisdiction

• Criminal cases pertain to unlawful acts. These cases include theft, dacoity, rape, pickpocketing, physical assault, and murder. 
• Such cases are filed in lower courts by the police on behalf of the state against the accused. Should the accused be found guilty, they might face penalties such as fines, imprisonment, or even the death penalty. 
• These matters are resolved by the Criminal Courts in line with the Criminal Procedure Code and Indian Penal Code.

Revenue Courts

Revenue courts oversee cases concerning land revenue within the state. The Board of Revenue serves as the apex revenue court in the district, followed by the Commissioners’, Collectors’, Tehsildars’, and Assistant Tehsildars’ Courts. The Board of Revenue is responsible for hearing final appeals from the lower revenue courts. 

The primary function of these courts is to resolve all matters related to land revenue, as well as issues concerning agricultural land boundaries and tenancy. Cases brought before them include succession, land transfer, partition of holdings, boundary demarcation, removal of encroachments, eviction of trespassers, and declaratory suits in various states. Notably, such cases do not fall under the purview of civil courts.