Background of High Court
We know that the Indian judicial system is integrated, that is, at the top is the Supreme Court,
below that is the High Court of the states and after that the subordinate courts within the High
Court. Although the High Court comes after the Supreme Court, but if we talk about it in the
sense of the state, it is at the top in any state.
The history of the High Court in India is older than the Supreme Court. You can guess how old it
is from the fact that three High Courts were formed in 1862 itself; In Calcutta, Bombay and
Madras. At that time, whichever province of British India established a High Court, it became
the High Court of that state after independence.
Although under Article 214 of the Constitution of India , a High Court has been provided for
each state, but in the Seventh Constitutional Amendment Act 1956, the Parliament has been
given the right to establish a single High Court for two or more states. Will be able to establish
(this thing was written in Article 231 ).
Similarly, it was written in Article 230 that the authority of the High Court can be extended to
the Union Territories also.
At present there are 25 High Courts in the country. Of these, four are common high courts. Delhi
is the only Union Territory which has its own High Court since 1966.
Other Union Territories come under the judicial jurisdiction of the High Courts of different
States. Parliament may extend the jurisdiction of a High Court to any Union territory or exclude
any Union territory from the jurisdiction of a High Court.
You can see below the list of all the High Courts in India and their jurisdiction.
High Court of India and its jurisdiction
Year of
Name establishment Jurisdiction
1. Tripura 2013 Tripura
2. Meghalaya 2013 Meghalaya
3. Manipur 2013 Manipur
4. Uttarakhand 2000 Uttarakhand
5. Jharkhand 2000 Jharkhand
1|Page
Year of
Name establishment Jurisdiction
6.Chhattisgarh _ 2000 Chhattisgarh
7. Sikkim 1975 Sikkim
8. Himachal Pradesh 1971 Himachal Pradesh
9. Delhi 1966 Delhi
10. Gujarat 1960 Gujarat
11. Kerala 1958 Kerala and Lakshadweep
12. Madhya Pradesh 1956 Madhya Pradesh
13. Telangana 2019 Hyderabad
14. Rajasthan 1949 Rajasthan
15. Orissa 1948 Orissa
Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal
16. Guwahati 1948 Pradesh
17. Jammu and
Kashmir 1928 Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh
18. Patna 1916 Bihar
19. Karnataka 1884 Karnataka
20. Punjab and
Haryana 1875 Punjab, Haryana and Chandigarh
2|Page
Year of
Name establishment Jurisdiction
21. Allahabad 1966 Uttar Pradesh
22. Bombay 1862 Maharashtra, Goa, Dadra and Nagar Haveli
West Bengal and Andaman and Nicobar
23. Calcutta 1862 Islands
24. Madras 1982 Tamil Nadu and Puducherry
25. Andhra Pradesh 2019 Andhra Pradesh
High Court in India
⚫ In Part 6 of the Constitution, Articles 214 to 231 explain the constitution, independence,
judicial jurisdiction, powers, procedures etc. of the High Courts. About which we will talk one
by one.
Formation of High Court
Under Article 216, there has been talk of formation of a High Court. But nothing has been
said in the Constitution about how many judges will constitute the High Court, hence it is left to
the discretion of the President, if the President feels that the number of judges in a High Court is
less then he can increase it. Can.
appointment of judges
Article 217 talks about the appointment of a High Court judge and his conditions of
office. Judges of the High Courts are appointed by the President.
The Chief Justice is appointed by the President after consultation with the Chief Justice of
India and the Governor of that State and for the appointment of other judges the President
consults the Chief Justice of that court. And similarly if the judges in the common High Court of
two or more states are appointed after consulting the Governors of all the concerned states.
Third judges case (Third judges case) In 1998, the Supreme Court said that on the appointment
of High Court judges, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court should consult the two senior-most
judges. Thus, the opinion of the Chief Justice of India alone will not complete the consultation
process.
3|Page
Qualifications of judges
To be appointed as a judge of a High Court, a person must have the following qualifications.
1. He should be a citizen of India,
2. He should have 10 years of experience in judicial work in India, or he should have been an
advocate in the High Court for 10 consecutive years.
Remember two things here (1) There is no minimum age limit prescribed in the Constitution for
the appointment of a High Court judge, and (2) There is no provision in the Constitution for
appointing eminent jurists as judges of a High Court, like the Supreme Court. There is no
provision.
oath and affirmation
Under Article 219, provision has been made for the oath or affirmation of judges. A person
who has been appointed a Judge of a High Court, before assuming office, is required to make the
following oath or affirmation before the Governor of the State or any other person appointed by
him for the purpose.
In his oath, a High Court judge takes an oath.
1. Will observe true faith and allegiance towards the Constitution of India.
2. Will keep India's sovereignty and integrity intact.
3. Will perform the duties of his post properly and faithfully and to the best of his ability,
knowledge and discretion, without fear or favour, affection or ill will.
4. Will maintain the dignity of the Constitution and law.
tenure of judges
The tenure of High Court judges is not prescribed in the Constitution. Nevertheless, four
provisions have been made in this regard.
(1) Holds the post till the age of 62 years. In case of any dispute regarding his age, the President
consults the Chief Justice of India before giving his decision. The decision of the President in
this regard is final.
(2) If he wishes, he can send his resignation letter to the President.
(3) The President can remove him from the post on the recommendation of the Parliament, that
is, through the process of impeachment.
(4) He resigns his office if he is appointed as a judge of the Supreme Court or if he is transferred
to any other High Court.
removal of judges
Article 218 clearly says that in the same way as a judge of the Supreme Court is removed under
the provisions of clause (4) and clause (5) of Article 124, the judges of the High Court will also
be removed.
4|Page
In other words, a High Court judge can be removed from office by the President's order. But the
grounds for removal must be proven misconduct or incompetence. Along with this, the proposal
to remove the judge must be passed by a special majority of each house. That too in the same
session in which the motion for removal has been brought.
For this, the complete provision for impeachment has been mentioned in the Judges Inquiry
Act 1968 – which is as follows –
(1) First of all, to present the impeachment motion in the House, the signed resolution of 100
members in the Lok Sabha or 50 members in the Rajya Sabha will have to be submitted to the
Speaker or Chairman.
(2) The Speaker/Chairman can accept or reject the proposal. If the motion is accepted, the
Speaker or Chairman will constitute a three-member committee to investigate the allegations.
(3) The Committee shall consist of (first) the Chief Justice or a Judge of the Supreme Court,
(second) the Chief Justice of a High Court and (third) an eminent jurist.
(4) If the Committee finds that the judge is guilty of misconduct or is unfit, the House may
consider the motion. And after the resolution is passed by both the Houses of Parliament with
special majority, it is sent to the President to remove the judge. Ultimately the President passes
orders to remove the judges.
If you remember the provision for removal of judges of the Supreme Court, you can see that it is
exactly like that. It is interesting to know that till now no High Court judge has been impeached.
transfer of judges
Under Article 222, the President can transfer a judge from one High Court to another after
consultation with the Chief Justice of India. On transfer he shall be entitled, in addition to his
pay, to such compensatory allowance as may be determined by Parliament.
In 1977, the Supreme Court ruled that transfer of judges should be done only as an exception and
keeping public welfare in mind and not as a punishment. Again in 1994, the Supreme Court said
that judicial review is necessary to prevent arbitrariness in transfer of judges but only the judge
who has been transferred can challenge the case.
In the Third Judge case in 1998, the Supreme Court opined that in case of transfer of a High
Court judge, the Chief Justice of India would have to consult the four senior-most judges.
Out of these, two judges will be the Chief Justice of the High Court, one from where he is being
transferred and one from where he is going. Only after this the President can transfer a High
Court judge.
5|Page
Executive Chief Justice
Under Article 223, the President can appoint a judge of a High Court as the acting Chief Justice
of that High Court. When:
(1) Either the office of the Chief Justice of the High Court is vacant, or
(2) the Chief Justice of the High Court is temporarily absent. or
(3) if the Chief Justice is incapable of performing his functions.
Additional and Executive Judge
Under Article 224 , the President can temporarily appoint qualified persons under certain
circumstances as additional judges of the High Court for a period not exceeding two years.
(1) If the business of the High Court has temporarily increased, or
(2) There is a large amount of work outstanding in the High Court.
(3) When a Judge of a High Court (other than the Chief Justice) is absent or otherwise incapable
of performing his functions, or
(4) When a Judge has been temporarily appointed Chief Justice of the High Court concerned. .
An acting judge serves until a permanent judge assumes office. However, an Additional or
Acting Judge cannot hold office beyond the age of 62 years.
Retired Judge
Under Article 224 (a), the Chief Justice of a High Court can at any time ask a retired judge of
that High Court or any other High Court to act as an acting judge for a temporary
period. However, he can do this only after the prior recommendation of the President and the
approval of the person concerned.
Such a judge is entitled to allowances fixed by the President. He has all the jurisdiction, powers,
facilities and privileges of the High Court, but he is not considered a judge of that High Court.
independence of the high court
The principle of judicial independence is adopted so that the judge remains free to take decisions
as per his judicial discretion during his entire tenure while protecting the supremacy of the
Constitution. No matter how politically unpopular those decisions may be or opposed by
powerful interests.
The following provisions are made in the Constitution for the impartial and independent
functioning of the High Court:
(1) Method of appointment and security of tenure – High Court judges are appointed by the
President himself in consultation with the members of the judiciary.
As we have just read above, judges do not work during the pleasure of the President, that is, the
President cannot remove a High Court judge at his own discretion. In this way, the tenure of the
judges is secure and they can take even the toughest decisions.
6|Page
(2) Fixed service conditions and expenditure charged on the Consolidated Fund of the State
– The salary, allowances, privileges, leave and pension of the High Court judges are determined
by the Parliament from time to time. These cannot be reduced except in case of financial
emergency.
Secondly, the salaries and allowances of the judges and staff and the administrative expenses of
the High Court are charged on the consolidated fund of the concerned state. And there can be no
voting on it in the state legislature.
The thing worth noting here is that the pension of a High Court judge is given from the
Consolidated Fund of India, and not from the Consolidated Fund of the State.
(3) The work of judges cannot be discussed – The conduct of a High Court judge cannot be
discussed in the Parliament or the State Legislature except when an impeachment motion is
under consideration in the Parliament.
(4) Restrictions on advocacy after retirement – According to Article 220, a retired permanent
judge of a High Court cannot argue or act in any court or authority other than the Supreme Court
and other High Courts in India. Such a provision has been made so that they do not show
favoritism to anyone in the hope of getting some benefit in the future.
(5) Power to punish for its contempt – The High Court can punish any person for its
contempt. Thus, no one can criticize or oppose its actions and decisions. This power has been
given to maintain the authority, dignity and respect of the High Court.
(6) Freedom to appoint his employees – The Chief Justice of the High Court can appoint his
officers and employees in the High Court (without interference from the executive) and can also
decide their service conditions. This is a great freedom in itself.
(7) Its judicial area cannot be reduced – The judicial area and judicial powers mentioned in the
Constitution of the High Court cannot be reduced neither by the Parliament nor by the State
Legislature. But in other cases its jurisdiction and power can be changed by the Parliament and
Legislature.
(8) Separation from the Executive – According to the constitutional provision, the judiciary
should be kept separate from the executive in public services, that is, the executive should not
have judicial powers.
7|Page
Difference between Supreme Court and High Court
Supreme court High court
The High Court is the highest level of
The Supreme Court, which is led by the
judicial authority in a state's
Chief Justice of India, is the country's
administration. The Chief Justice of
highest court of justice.
the State is in charge of it.
All of the country's legal courts and The High Court is in supervision of
tribunals are supervised by the Supreme all courts that fall under its
Court. jurisdiction.
Article 214 to 231 of part six of the
Article 124 to 147 in part five of the
constitution deals with the
constitution deal with the organisation,
organization, independence,
independence, jurisdiction, powers,
jurisdiction, powers, procedures and
procedures and so on.
so on.
According to the Indian Constitution,
every Supreme Court Judge must be The President, in consultation with the
appointed by the President through a Chief Justice of India and the
warrant signed by him and sealed after Governor of the state, appoints the
consultation with the Supreme Court and judges of the High Court.
High Court as he deems necessary.
A Supreme Court judge retires at the age A high Court judge retires at the age
of 65 of 62
Qualifications of supreme court judge
Qualifications of a high court judge
He should be a citizen of India.
He should be a citizen of India.
He should have been a judge of a high
He should have held a judicial office
court for 5 years, he should be an advocate
in the territory of India for ten years
of a high court for 10 years, he should be a
or he should have been an advocate of
distinguished jurist in the opinion of the
high court for 10 years
president
Judges from the High Courts can be
The Supreme Court judges are not able to transferred to other high courts. They
be promoted or transferred. can advance to the position of
Supreme Court Judge.
After retirement, Supreme Court judges A High Court judge cannot practise
8|Page
during his or her tenure, but they can
do so after the tenure in any High
are unable to practise. During their tenure, Court or Supreme Court.
they are also restricted.
He is unable to practise law in courts
lower than the High Court.
The Supreme Court of India is now made
up of 31 judges ( Including the Chief
Justice and 30 other judges). There is a Chief Justice and numerous
The Supreme Court (Number of Judges) other judges on each High Court.
has made provisions for the appointment The President of India determines the
of four more judges. number of judges to be appointed.
It grew from 31 to 34 members, including
the Chief Justice of India.
Article 32 is the writ jurisdiction of the Article 226 of the constitution
supreme court empowers a high court to issue writs.
The high court is empowered to issue
writs including habeas corpus,
The supreme court is empowered to issues mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto
writs including habeas corpus, mandamus, and certiorari for the enforcement of
prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari the fundamental rights and for any
for the enforcement of the fundamental ordinary legal rights.
rights
The writ jurisdiction of high court is
wider than supreme court
The 42th amendment act 1978
curtailed the judicial review power of
the high court.
Judicial review is the power of the
supreme court to examine the It debarred the high court from
constitutionality of legislative enactments considering the constitutional validity
and executive orders of both central and of any central law.
state governments.
The 43rd amendment act of 1977
restored the original position of
judicial review.
The Supreme Court is not bound to follow
The Supreme Court's decision is
the High Courts' or any other court's
binding on the High Courts.
decisions.
9|Page
