35 High Courts Composition, Jurisdiction, Independence

High Courts in India: History, Organization, Jurisdiction

In India's unified judicial system, the High Courts hold a pivotal position: they function below the Supreme Court but above the subordinate courts, forming the apex of judicial administration in each state. A state's judiciary comprises its High Court at the top, supported by a structured hierarchy of lower courts.

The roots of High Courts in India trace back to the British era, with the first three established in 1862 at Calcutta, Bombay, and Madras. A fourth followed in 1866 at Allahabad, and over time, every province in British India gained its own High Court. After independence in 1950, these provincial High Courts seamlessly transitioned to serve the newly formed states.

The Constitution of India mandates a High Court for each state under Article 214, yet it allows flexibility. The Seventh Amendment Act, 1956, empowered Parliament to create a common High Court for two or more states, or for states alongside union territories. The territorial reach of a High Court aligns precisely with its state's boundaries, while a common High Court extends across the relevant states and union territories.

As of 2019, India has 25 High Courts. Only three exercise jurisdiction over multiple states, reflecting the constitutional provisions for shared courts. Among the nine union territories, Delhi stands alone with its own High Court since 1966, while Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh share a common one. The remaining union territories come under the jurisdiction of nearby state High Courts. Parliament retains the authority to extend a High Court's jurisdiction to any union territory or to withdraw it as needed.

For a detailed overview, including the name, year of establishment, territorial jurisdiction, and seat (with benches) of all 25 High Courts, refer to Table 34.1 at the end of this chapter.

Part VI of the Constitution, spanning Articles 214 to 231, comprehensively addresses the organization, independence, jurisdiction, powers, procedures, and other key aspects of High Courts.

High Court Composition and Appointments

Each High Court, whether dedicated exclusively to a single state or serving multiple states jointly, is constituted by a Chief Justice and such additional judges as the President may appoint from time to time. The Constitution intentionally avoids prescribing a fixed number of judges for any High Court, vesting this authority entirely in the President's discretion. This flexibility enables the President to periodically adjust the court's strength in response to its evolving workload and caseload demands.

Appointment of High Court Judges

Under the Indian Constitution, the President appoints all judges of a High Court, ensuring a process that balances executive authority with judicial input. For the Chief Justice of a High Court, the President consults the Chief Justice of India (CJI) and the Governor of the concerned state. When appointing other judges, the President also seeks the opinion of the Chief Justice of that High Court. In cases where a single High Court serves two or more states—such as the common High Courts for Punjab and Haryana or Gujarat and Union Territories—the President consults the Governors of all relevant states.

This framework evolved significantly through landmark Supreme Court judgments, collectively known as the "Judges Cases." In the Second Judges Case (1993), the Court mandated that no High Court judge could be appointed without aligning with the CJI's opinion, effectively prioritizing judicial primacy. The Third Judges Case (1998) refined this further: for High Court appointments, the CJI must consult a collegium comprising the two senior-most Supreme Court judges. This ensured that the CJI's view alone did not suffice as "consultation," institutionalizing a collective judicial recommendation process.

A major shift occurred with the 99th Constitutional Amendment Act (2014) and the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act (2014), which sought to replace the collegium system with a broader NJAC. This new body would include the CJI, two senior Supreme Court judges, the Union Law Minister, and two eminent persons, aiming for greater transparency and executive involvement in appointing judges to both the Supreme Court and High Courts. However, in the Fourth Judges Case (2015), a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court struck down both the amendment and the NJAC Act as unconstitutional. The Court reasoned that the NJAC compromised judicial independence by giving the executive undue influence, thereby restoring the pre-2014 collegium system. This verdict underscores the judiciary's steadfast commitment to insulating appointments from political pressures, a cornerstone of India's constitutional democracy.

Qualifications for Appointment as a High Court Judge

The Indian Constitution sets clear yet straightforward qualifications for appointing judges to a High Court, ensuring a balance between experience and nationality. At the outset, the candidate must be a citizen of India. Beyond this, they must satisfy one of two professional benchmarks: either having served in a judicial office within Indian territory for at least ten years, or having practiced as an advocate in a High Court—or in successive High Courts—for a comparable period of ten years.

These requirements highlight the Constitution's emphasis on proven legal expertise without unnecessary rigidities. For instance, no minimum age is prescribed, allowing for appointments based purely on merit and tenure. In contrast to the Supreme Court, where a distinguished jurist may be directly elevated, the framers made no such provision for High Courts, prioritizing hands-on judicial or advocacy experience.

Oath of High Court Judges

Before entering office, every judge appointed to a High Court must take a solemn oath or affirmation. This ritual underscores the gravity of judicial responsibility and is administered by the Governor of the state or an individual authorized by the Governor for that purpose.

In the oath, the judge pledges unwavering loyalty to the Constitution of India by bearing true faith and allegiance to it. The commitment extends to safeguarding India's sovereignty and integrity. Above all, the judge vows to execute the duties of the office with utmost diligence, faithfulness, and impartiality—drawing on the best of their ability, knowledge, and judgment—free from fear, favor, affection, or ill will. Finally, they affirm their resolve to uphold both the Constitution and the laws of the land. This comprehensive pledge ensures that High Court judges embody the highest standards of constitutional fidelity and judicial independence from the outset.

Salaries and Allowances of High Court Judges

Parliament holds the authority to determine the salaries, allowances, privileges, leave provisions, and pensions of High Court judges, adjusting them as needed over time. Crucially, these benefits cannot be altered to the judges' disadvantage after their appointment, except in the rare event of a financial emergency—a safeguard rooted in the Constitution to ensure judicial independence.

In 2018, these salaries saw a significant upward revision: the Chief Justice's monthly pay rose from ₹90,000 to ₹2.50 lakh, while that of other judges increased from ₹80,000 to ₹2.25 lakh. Beyond basic pay, judges receive a sumptuary allowance to cover minor daily expenses. They also enjoy free official accommodation, along with essential perks such as medical facilities, official vehicles, telephones, and similar amenities.

Upon retirement, both former Chief Justices and judges are entitled to a monthly pension equivalent to 50% of their last drawn salary, providing financial security in line with their lifelong service to the judiciary.

Tenure of High Court Judges

The Constitution of India does not prescribe a fixed tenure for High Court judges. Instead, it outlines four key provisions that govern how long they hold office and under what circumstances they may relinquish it.

A High Court judge serves until attaining the age of 62 years. If any dispute arises regarding the judge's age, the President decides the matter after consulting the Chief Justice of India, and this decision is final and binding. Alternatively, a judge may resign by submitting a written letter to the President. Removal from office is also possible, but only by the President acting on a recommendation from Parliament. Finally, the judge vacates the position upon appointment as a Supreme Court judge or transfer to another High Court. These provisions ensure a balance between judicial independence and accountability.

Removal of High Court Judges

The removal of a High Court judge from office is a rigorous constitutional process, designed to safeguard judicial independence while allowing accountability. Under Article 217 of the Constitution, the President may issue an order removing a judge only after Parliament presents an address in the same session recommending such action. This address requires a special majority in each House: a majority of the total membership of that House, plus a majority of at least two-thirds of the members present and voting. The grounds for removal are strictly limited to proved misbehaviour or incapacity, mirroring the procedure and criteria for Supreme Court judges.

The Judges Enquiry Act (1968) governs the impeachment process in detail, ensuring a fair and structured investigation. It begins with a removal motion, signed by at least 100 members of the Lok Sabha or 50 members of the Rajya Sabha, submitted to the Speaker or Chairman respectively. The presiding officer decides whether to admit the motion. If admitted, they constitute a three-member committee to probe the charges, comprising the Chief Justice of India (or a Supreme Court judge), a High Court Chief Justice, and a distinguished jurist.

The committee's report is pivotal: if it substantiates misbehaviour or incapacity, either House may proceed to debate and vote on the motion. Passage by the requisite special majority in both Houses leads to the presentation of the address to the President, who then issues the final removal order. This methodical sequence underscores the high threshold for impeachment, reflecting the framers' intent to protect judges from frivolous or politically motivated attacks.

Notably, while the process is identical to that for Supreme Court judges, no High Court judge has ever been impeached, highlighting the rarity and gravity of such proceedings in India's judicial history.

Transfer of High Court Judges

The President of India holds the authority to transfer a judge from one High Court to another, but only after consulting the Chief Justice of India. Upon transfer, the judge receives, in addition to their regular salary, a compensatory allowance as determined by Parliament, ensuring fairness in such relocations.

Over time, the Supreme Court has imposed significant safeguards to prevent misuse of this power. In 1977, it ruled that transfers should occur only as an exceptional measure, driven by public interest and never as punishment. This was reinforced in 1994, when the Court mandated judicial review to curb arbitrariness, though only the affected judge may challenge the decision.

The Third Judges Case (1998) further refined the consultation process. It clarified that the Chief Justice of India must not act unilaterally; instead, they should consult the collegium—comprising the four seniormost Supreme Court judges—along with the Chief Justices of the two High Courts involved: the one from which the judge is departing and the one receiving them. This multi-layered consultation underscores the judiciary's commitment to transparency and collegiality in matters of judicial transfers.

Presidential Appointment of Acting Chief Justice

In times of need, the President of India steps in to ensure the seamless functioning of High Courts by appointing a sitting judge as Acting Chief Justice. This power comes into play under three key circumstances: when the office of the Chief Justice falls vacant; when the Chief Justice is temporarily absent; or when the Chief Justice is unable to perform their duties. Such appointments maintain judicial continuity without disruption, upholding the high standards of administration in these vital constitutional institutions.

Additional and Acting High Court Judges

To address fluctuating workloads in High Courts, the President holds the authority to appoint duly qualified persons as additional judges for a limited term not exceeding two years. This provision comes into play during periods of temporary surge in caseload or when significant backlogs—known as arrears—accumulate, ensuring the court can maintain its efficiency without permanent expansions.

Similarly, the President may designate a qualified individual as an acting judge of a High Court in specific scenarios involving sitting judges other than the Chief Justice. This occurs if such a judge is temporarily unable to discharge duties due to absence or any other reason, or if appointed to serve temporarily as Chief Justice. The acting judge continues in office only until the original judge resumes duties, providing seamless continuity.

Both additional and acting judges must vacate their positions upon reaching the age of 62, aligning with the retirement norms for High Court judges and preventing indefinite extensions.

Retired Judges

In a provision designed to address temporary shortages in judicial manpower, the Chief Justice of a High Court may invite a retired judge—either from their own court or from another High Court—to serve temporarily as a judge of that court. This step can be taken at any time, but only with the prior consent of both the President and the retired judge.

Upon appointment, such a judge receives allowances as determined by the President and exercises the full jurisdiction, powers, and privileges of a permanent High Court judge. Crucially, however, this role remains strictly ad hoc; the individual is not otherwise deemed a judge of the High Court.

Safeguarding High Court Independence

The independence of a High Court is vital for it to discharge its constitutional duties effectively. Free from encroachments, pressures, or interference by the executive (the Council of Ministers) or the legislature, it can dispense justice without fear or favor, upholding the rule of law impartially.

Recognizing this imperative, the Constitution incorporates targeted provisions to safeguard the High Court's independence and ensure its impartial functioning.

Mode of Appointment

High Court judges are appointed by the President—effectively on the advice of the Union Cabinet—following consultations with senior judicial authorities, namely the Chief Justice of India and the Chief Justice of the High Court concerned. This constitutional safeguard deliberately limits the executive's absolute discretion, ensuring that selections prioritize judicial merit over political favoritism or other extraneous considerations.

Security of Tenure

High Court judges in India benefit from strong security of tenure, a vital safeguard for judicial independence. They hold their positions until the age of 62 or resignation, and can be removed by the President only through the precise procedure and on the grounds explicitly laid out in the Constitution—typically involving proven misbehavior or incapacity via an impeachment-like process. This provision ensures that, despite being appointed by the President, judges do not serve at his mere pleasure, shielding them from executive whims. The robustness of this protection is evident in practice: no High Court judge has ever been impeached or removed from office.

Fixed Service Conditions

The salaries, allowances, privileges, leave entitlements, and pensions of High Court judges are set by Parliament from time to time, ensuring adaptability to changing needs. However, a key safeguard protects judicial independence: these terms cannot be altered to the judges' disadvantage after their appointment, except during a financial emergency under Article 360 of the Constitution. As a result, High Court judges enjoy stable service conditions throughout their tenure, free from mid-term reductions that could undermine their autonomy.

Expenses Charged on the Consolidated Fund

Certain essential expenses of a High Court are directly charged on the Consolidated Fund of the State, ensuring their financial independence from routine legislative scrutiny. These include the salaries and allowances of the judges, as well as the salaries, allowances, and pensions of the court's staff and its administrative costs. As a result, these expenditures are non-votable by the state legislature—meaning they cannot be rejected or reduced through voting—but they remain open for discussion during legislative debates. Notably, the pension of a High Court judge stands apart: it is charged on the Consolidated Fund of India, rather than the state fund, underscoring the central government's role in safeguarding judicial retirement benefits.

5. Prohibition on Discussing Judges' Conduct

To safeguard judicial independence, the Indian Constitution strictly bars any discussion in Parliament or a state legislature on the conduct of High Court judges during the discharge of their duties. The sole exception arises when Parliament is considering an impeachment motion against such a judge, ensuring that critiques remain confined to formal removal proceedings rather than open debate.

6. Ban on Practice after Retirement

Article 220 of the Indian Constitution imposes a strict prohibition on retired permanent judges of a High Court from pleading or acting in any court or before any authority across India—except the Supreme Court and other High Courts. This safeguard upholds the integrity of the judiciary by eliminating the risk of judges showing undue favor to litigants or entities during their tenure, in hopes of securing lucrative legal practice afterward. In essence, it reinforces impartiality, ensuring that judicial decisions remain untainted by post-retirement prospects.

7. Power to Punish for Contempt

High Courts wield the inherent power to punish any individual for contempt of court, a vital safeguard for their institutional integrity. This authority ensures that no one can freely criticize or challenge the court's actions and decisions, thereby upholding its dignity, honour, and unchallenged position within the judicial hierarchy. By deterring interference or disrespect, this power reinforces the High Court's role as a pillar of justice, free from external pressures.

8. Freedom to Appoint its Staff

A key aspect of judicial independence for High Courts lies in the Chief Justice's unchallenged authority to appoint the court's officers and servants. Free from any executive interference, the Chief Justice also has the power to determine their conditions of service, ensuring that the court's administrative functioning remains insulated from external pressures.

9. Immunity of Constitutional Jurisdiction

A defining strength of the High Court lies in the inviolability of its jurisdiction and powers as enshrined directly in the Constitution. Neither Parliament nor any state legislature can curtail these core elements, ensuring the judiciary's foundational role remains untouched. However, beyond this constitutional core, lawmakers at both levels—Parliament and state assemblies—hold the flexibility to enlarge, modify, or even restrict the High Court's jurisdiction through ordinary legislation. This balance preserves judicial independence while allowing legislative adaptability to evolving needs.

10. Separation from the Executive

A key directive in India's Constitution requires the State to progressively separate the judiciary from the executive within public services. enshrined in the Directive Principles of State Policy, this provision ensures that executive authorities no longer exercise judicial powers, fostering true judicial independence.

Once implemented, this reform decisively ended the executive's longstanding role in judicial administration, marking a pivotal step toward an impartial justice system.

Jurisdiction and Powers of the High Court

The High Court mirrors the Supreme Court in wielding extensive and potent authority within its domain. As the apex judicial body in a state, it serves as the highest court of appeal, safeguards citizens' Fundamental Rights, and holds the crucial responsibility of interpreting the Constitution. Beyond these core functions, it exercises supervisory oversight over lower courts and offers consultative advice when sought.

The Constitution does not delineate the High Court's jurisdiction and powers in exhaustive detail. Instead, it stipulates that these shall remain substantially as they existed immediately before January 26, 1950—the date of the Constitution's commencement. A key enhancement, however, is the explicit grant of jurisdiction over revenue matters, which High Courts lacked in the pre-Constitution period. Additional powers, such as issuing writs, exercising superintendence, and providing consultation, flow from other constitutional provisions. Notably, the Constitution also empowers Parliament and state legislatures to modify a High Court's jurisdiction and powers through legislation, ensuring adaptability to evolving needs.

Today, High Courts exercise a multifaceted jurisdiction that includes original, writ, appellate, and supervisory powers; control over subordinate courts; status as a court of record; and the power of judicial review. In original jurisdiction, they directly entertain certain cases, such as those involving civil disputes of high value or fundamental rights violations. Writ jurisdiction empowers them to issue prerogative writs like habeas corpus or mandamus to enforce rights and check administrative excesses—a vital tool for constitutional remedies. Appellate jurisdiction allows appeals from subordinate courts in civil, criminal, and other matters, providing a critical layer of review. Supervisory jurisdiction enables oversight of tribunals and inferior courts to ensure justice is administered properly, while their role as a court of record lends their judgments precedential weight and authenticity.

These powers are regulated by a blend of sources: constitutional provisions; Letters Patent issued by the Crown (adapted post-independence); Acts of Parliament and state legislatures; the Indian Penal Code, 1860; the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; and the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. This framework underscores the High Court's pivotal role in upholding the rule of law at the state level, blending tradition with constitutional innovation.

Original Jurisdiction of High Courts

The original jurisdiction of a High Court refers to its authority to hear and decide certain disputes directly in the first instance, rather than as an appellate body. This power is invoked for a select range of significant cases, ensuring that critical matters receive prompt judicial scrutiny at the High Court's level.

This jurisdiction encompasses disputes involving admiralty (maritime law) and contempt of court, as well as challenges to the election of Members of Parliament or state legislatures. It also covers revenue matters, including any acts performed during revenue collection. High Courts play a vital role in safeguarding citizens' fundamental rights by directly enforcing them through writs. Additionally, they can transfer cases from subordinate courts to their own bench when those cases require interpretation of the Constitution of India.

Four prominent High Courts—Calcutta, Bombay, Madras, and Delhi—exercise original civil jurisdiction over high-value disputes, handling them as courts of first instance. Notably, prior to 1973, the Calcutta, Bombay, and Madras High Courts also held original criminal jurisdiction, but this was completely abolished by the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Writ Jurisdiction of High Courts

Under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution, High Courts wield broad authority to issue five key writs—habeas corpus, mandamus, certiorari, prohibition, and quo warranto. These remedies serve primarily to enforce citizens' fundamental rights, but their scope extends further through the phrase "for any other purpose," which covers the protection of ordinary legal rights as well. Notably, a High Court can direct these writs not only to entities within its territorial limits but also beyond them, provided the cause of action arises within its jurisdiction. This flexibility underscores the High Courts' role as vigilant guardians of justice at the state level.

This writ jurisdiction under Article 226 operates concurrently with the Supreme Court's powers under Article 32, rather than exclusively. When fundamental rights are infringed, an aggrieved individual may approach either the High Court or the Supreme Court directly, offering a choice of forums. Yet, the High Courts' jurisdiction remains wider: while the Supreme Court issues writs solely for fundamental rights violations, High Courts can intervene in breaches of ordinary legal rights too.

The Supreme Court affirmed the unassailable nature of this dual writ jurisdiction in the Chandra Kumar case (1997), declaring it a core element of the Constitution's basic structure. Consequently, neither parliamentary amendments nor any other measure can curtail or exclude it, ensuring enduring judicial oversight.

Appellate Jurisdiction

At its core, a High Court functions primarily as a court of appeal, reviewing judgments delivered by subordinate courts within its territorial jurisdiction. This appellate authority encompasses both civil and criminal matters, allowing it to address a broad spectrum of cases—from disputes over property and contracts to appeals against convictions or acquittals. Consequently, the High Court's appellate jurisdiction far exceeds the scope of its original jurisdiction, which is limited to specific high-value or constitutional matters. This expansive role ensures effective oversight and uniformity in the administration of justice across the region.

Civil Appellate Jurisdiction of High Courts

High Courts in India exercise extensive civil appellate jurisdiction, serving as the primary forum for reviewing decisions from lower courts and certain tribunals. This jurisdiction encompasses first appeals, second appeals, intra-court appeals in select High Courts, and appeals from administrative bodies, ensuring a structured hierarchy of judicial scrutiny.

First appeals lie directly to the High Court from orders and judgments of district courts, additional district courts, and other subordinate courts. These appeals address both questions of law and questions of fact, provided the pecuniary value exceeds the prescribed limit. This mechanism allows for comprehensive re-examination of trial court decisions at the appellate level.

Second appeals, by contrast, are narrower in scope. They arise from orders and judgments of district courts or subordinate courts but are confined to questions of law only, excluding disputes over facts. This limitation prevents endless litigation and focuses the High Court's role on legal interpretation.

Certain High Courts—namely, the Calcutta High Court, Bombay High Court, and Madras High Court—feature a unique provision for intra-court appeals. When a single judge delivers a decision under the High Court's original or appellate jurisdiction, an aggrieved party may appeal to a division bench of the same High Court. This internal review process enhances accountability within these historic courts.

Finally, appeals from decisions of administrative and other tribunals are directed to the division bench of the relevant state High Court. A landmark 1997 ruling by the Supreme Court affirmed that such tribunals fall under the High Courts' writ jurisdiction. As a result, an aggrieved person cannot bypass the High Court and approach the Supreme Court directly; the High Court must be the first port of call, upholding the principle of judicial hierarchy.

(b) Criminal Matters

High Courts exercise appellate jurisdiction in criminal matters primarily over decisions from lower courts, ensuring a robust check on sentencing and justice delivery. Appeals against judgments from a Sessions Court or Additional Sessions Court lie directly to the High Court when the sentence imposes imprisonment exceeding seven years. Crucially, any death sentence—commonly referred to as capital punishment—handed down by such courts must receive mandatory confirmation from the High Court before execution. This safeguard applies regardless of whether the convicted person files an appeal, underscoring the gravity of the penalty.

Additionally, under specific provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, appeals from judgments by an Assistant Sessions Judge, Metropolitan Magistrate, or other Judicial Magistrates may also reach the High Court. These targeted exceptions allow for higher scrutiny in select cases, balancing efficiency with accountability in the judicial hierarchy.

Supervisory Jurisdiction of High Courts

High Courts in India wield a vital supervisory jurisdiction over all courts and tribunals within their territorial limits, excluding military ones. This authority empowers them to maintain oversight and ensure smooth functioning across the judicial hierarchy. Specifically, a High Court can summon returns from these subordinate bodies, issue general rules and forms to regulate their practices and proceedings, dictate the formats for maintaining books, entries, and accounts, and even set fees for sheriffs, clerks, officers, and legal practitioners.

What makes this power remarkably expansive is its wide reach and flexibility. It encompasses every court and tribunal in the jurisdiction, regardless of whether they fall under the High Court's appellate oversight. Beyond mere administrative control, it extends to judicial matters as well, functioning as a revisional power that the High Court can invoke suo motu—on its own initiative—without needing a party's application.

That said, this superintendence is not an unchecked or boundless authority. As an extraordinary remedy, it must be exercised with utmost restraint, reserved for exceptional circumstances. High Courts typically intervene only in cases of jurisdictional overreach, flagrant breaches of natural justice, errors of law, defiance of superior courts' directives, perverse findings, or glaring instances of injustice. This measured approach safeguards the autonomy of lower courts while upholding the integrity of the justice system.

5. Control over Subordinate Courts

Beyond its appellate and supervisory jurisdictions, a High Court wields substantial administrative authority over subordinate courts within its territorial domain. This control ensures judicial efficiency, uniformity, and accountability, empowering the High Court to shape the functioning of the lower judiciary in vital ways.

The Governor must consult the High Court on critical personnel matters, including the appointment, posting, and promotion of district judges, as well as the selection of individuals for the state's judicial service—excluding district judges themselves. Once appointed, the High Court takes direct charge of managing these judicial officers (again, other than district judges). It handles their postings, promotions, grants of leave, transfers, and disciplinary proceedings, fostering a disciplined and responsive judicial cadre.

In addition, the High Court possesses extraordinary case-management powers. It may withdraw any case pending before a subordinate court if it raises a substantial question of law requiring interpretation of the Constitution. The High Court can then resolve the matter itself or decide the constitutional issue and remit the case back to the lower court with its authoritative judgment, streamlining complex litigation.

Finally, the precedents set by the High Court carry binding force on all subordinate courts within its jurisdiction—much like the Supreme Court's declarations bind courts across India—ensuring consistency and legal predictability at every level.

6. A Court of Record

High Courts in India hold the esteemed status of a court of record, a designation that grants them significant authority rooted in judicial tradition. This status manifests in two primary powers: the preservation of their judgments, proceedings, and acts as immutable records, and the ability to punish for contempt of court.

First, the records of a High Court are maintained for perpetual memory and testimony. These documents carry undeniable evidentiary value and cannot be challenged when presented before any subordinate court. Moreover, they serve as binding legal precedents and authoritative references, ensuring consistency and stability in the judicial system.

Second, a High Court wields the power to punish contempt of court through simple imprisonment, fines, or both. Although the Constitution does not define "contempt of court," the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, provides a clear framework. Contempt falls into two categories: civil and criminal. Civil contempt involves the willful disobedience of any judgment, decree, writ, order, or other process of a court, or the willful breach of an undertaking given to a court. Criminal contempt, on the other hand, encompasses publishing any matter or performing any act that (i) scandalizes or lowers the authority of the court; (ii) prejudices or interferes with the due course of a judicial proceeding; or (iii) obstructs the administration of justice in any other manner.

Not every critical statement qualifies as contempt, however. Innocent publication or distribution of matter, fair and accurate reports of judicial proceedings, reasonable criticism of judicial acts, and comments on the administrative aspects of the judiciary remain protected and do not constitute contempt.

Beyond these, as a court of record, a High Court possesses an inherent power to review and correct its own judgments, orders, or decisions—even without explicit constitutional authorization. In contrast, the Supreme Court has been expressly granted this power of review under the Constitution, highlighting a subtle distinction in their judicial architectures.

7. Power of Judicial Review

Judicial review empowers high courts to scrutinize the constitutionality of legislative enactments and executive orders issued by both Central and state governments. If such laws or orders are found to violate the Constitution—rendering them ultra vires—the high court can declare them illegal, unconstitutional, and void. As a result, the government cannot enforce them, ensuring that all actions remain within constitutional bounds.

Although the term "judicial review" does not appear explicitly in the Constitution, Articles 13 and 226 clearly vest this authority in high courts. Anyone can challenge the constitutional validity of a law or executive action on three key grounds: first, if it infringes upon fundamental rights enshrined in Part III; second, if it exceeds the legislative or executive competence of the issuing authority; or third, if it conflicts directly with other constitutional provisions. This framework upholds the supremacy of the Constitution as the ultimate legal arbiter.

This power faced a temporary setback through the 42nd Amendment Act of 1976, which barred high courts from questioning the validity of Central laws. Fortunately, the 43rd Amendment Act of 1977 promptly reversed this change, restoring the high courts' full judicial review authority to its original scope.