India needs better judges, not just more judges

Every discussion on judicial reform in India eventually arrives at the same destination: the shortage of judges. Court vacancies, pendency and delays dominate headlines and policy debates. Yet a more fundamental question often escapes serious scrutiny. Are we paying enough attention to the quality of judges entering the system?

The answer, unfortunately, is not reassuring. India’s district judiciary constitutes the backbone of the justice delivery system. For the overwhelming majority of citizens, justice begins and ends at the trial court level. Very few litigants ever reach a High Court, and fewer still find themselves before the Supreme Court. Yet the recruitment of judicial officers continues to be fragmented across States, governed by differing standards, varying examination patterns and inconsistent evaluation mechanisms.

The scale of the system itself demands greater attention. India today has sanctioned strength of around 26,000 judges functioning across the district judiciary for exercising sovereign judicial power over the lives, liberties, properties and businesses of citizens. Such a system cannot afford uneven standards.

One of the most troubling features of the present recruitment process is the tendency of some states to repeatedly reduce qualifying marks whenever an inadequate number of candidates clear the examination. In certain instances, qualifying thresholds have reportedly been brought down to levels that would be considered unacceptable in any other premier public service. The objective may be understandable i.e. vacancies must be filled; but judicial office cannot become an exercise in numerical completion. A vacancy in the judiciary is certainly undesirable, but a poorly trained or inadequately qualified judge may inflict far greater damage over decades of service. The quality of justice depends substantially upon the quality of judges.

A judicial officer is expected to interpret complex statutes, appreciate evidence, assess witness credibility, protect constitutional rights, understand commercial disputes, deal with cybercrime, determine questions of liberty and, above all, write reasoned judgments. These responsibilities demand intellectual rigour, legal scholarship, integrity and temperament. They cannot be compromised merely because vacancies need to be filled.

This is where the case for an All India Judicial Service (AIJS) becomes compelling. The Constitution has contemplated such a possibility. Yet political hesitation, federal concerns and institutional resistance have prevented its implementation. The time has perhaps come to revisit the idea with seriousness and urgency.

India recruits its finest administrative talent through nationally competitive examinations for the IAS, IPS and other All India Services. There is little reason why the judicial branch should not benefit from a similarly rigorous, merit-based and nationally standardised recruitment mechanism. An AIJS would not merely create uniformity; it would establish a national benchmark for excellence in judicial recruitment.

Critics often argue that local laws, regional languages and federal sensitivities make a national judicial service impractical. These concerns deserve respect but not surrender. The solution lies not in abandoning reform but in designing it intelligently. Language training, state-specific legal modules and probationary postings can address most operational challenges. What cannot be justified is the continuation of a system where the quality of recruitment varies dramatically depending upon geography.

However, recruitment alone will not solve the problem. The second and equally important reform concerns judicial training. India needs a comprehensive network of world-class judicial academies dedicated to producing not merely judges, but judicial leaders. Training cannot be reduced to a brief induction programme followed by decades of learning through trial and error. Judicial education must become a continuous process throughout a judge’s career.

More importantly, India is failing to utilise one of its greatest institutional resources i.e. retired judges of the High Courts and the Supreme Court. Every year, some of the finest legal minds retire from constitutional courts carrying with them decades of judicial wisdom, courtroom experience and jurisprudential understanding. Much of this invaluable knowledge remains underutilised. The nation invests enormously in creating great judges; it should not permit that investment to dissipate upon retirement.

Every retired High Court and Supreme Court judge should be encouraged and perhaps institutionally obligated to devote two-three years after retirement to judicial education and mentoring. Their role should not be ceremonial. They should teach judgment writing, constitutional values, evidence appreciation, ethics, case management, commercial law, technology and judicial temperament.

No textbook can replace the lived experience of a judge who has spent decades deciding complex questions of law and justice. Such an arrangement would create a culture of mentorship within the judiciary. Young judicial officers would benefit directly from the wisdom of those who have occupied the highest judicial offices in the country. Equally important, it would help create uniform standards of excellence across states and regions. The conversation on judicial reform must therefore evolve.

For too long, the focus has remained overwhelmingly on vacancies and pendency. Numbers matter, but numbers alone do not deliver justice. A system with more judges but weaker standards may produce more judgments without necessarily producing better justice.

India’s constitutional democracy deserves a judicial system built upon merit, excellence and continuous learning. An All India Judicial Service, coupled with robust judicial academies led by retired High Court and Supreme Court judges, can transform the quality of justice for generations.

Vivek Narayan Sharma is an Advocate-on-Record at the Supreme Court of India, constitutional expert, Accredited Mediator and Arbitrator, with over 26 years of experience in constitutional law, litigation, arbitration and public policy; Views presented are personal.