In India, the judicial system is hierarchical, meaning it has different levels. At the top of this hierarchy is the Supreme Court, followed by the High Courts, and below them are the subordinate courts, which include district courts and other lower courts. The High Court plays a crucial role in the legal framework of each state and serves as a key judicial authority.

The concept of High Courts in India began in 1862 when the British established High Courts in three major cities: Calcutta (now Kolkata), Bombay (now Mumbai), and Madras (now Chennai). Four years later, in 1866, a fourth High Court was set up in Allahabad. Over time, each province in British India established its own High Court. After India became a republic in 1950, the High Courts that existed in each province continued to serve as the High Courts for the corresponding states.

According to the Constitution of India, every state must have its own High Court. However, the Seventh Amendment Act of 1956 gives Parliament the authority to create a shared High Court for two or more states, or for a combination of states and union territories. The jurisdiction of a High Court is limited to the territory of its respective state. This means that the area where the High Court can exercise its power is directly tied to the size of the state it serves.

As of now, there are a total of 25 High Courts in India. Three of these High Courts have the authority to oversee matters in more than one state. In terms of union territories, only Delhi has its own High Court, which was established in 1966. The union territories of Jammu and Kashmir, as well as Ladakh, share a common High Court, while the other union territories fall under the jurisdiction of various state High Courts.

It is worth noting that the Indian Parliament can expand the jurisdiction of a High Court to include a union territory or can decide to exclude it from that jurisdiction. Details regarding the establishment year, jurisdiction, and location of the benches for all 25 High Courts can be found in legislative documents.

The workings and regulations governing the High Courts are outlined in Articles 214 to 231 of Part VI of the Constitution of India. These articles cover many important aspects such as the formation of High Courts, their independence, powers, and procedures. They ensure that High Courts operate fairly and effectively, maintaining a structure of justice within the country. This reflects the importance of the judiciary in protecting citizens' rights and upholding the rule of law in India.

Composition and Appointment of High Court Judges in India

Every high court in India is made up of a chief justice and other judges, determined by the President of India as needed. The Constitution of India doesn’t set a specific number of judges for each high court, allowing the President to change the number based on the court’s work and requirements at different times. Essentially, as the workload of the high court increases or decreases, the President can adjust the number of judges accordingly.

Appointment of Judges

Judges for the high courts are appointed by the President of India. The chief justice of a high court is selected after the President consults with the chief justice of India and the governor of the state where the high court operates. When it comes to appointing additional judges, the chief justice of the high court in question is also consulted. In cases where there is a common high court serving more than one state, the President will consult with the governors of all the states involved before making an appointment.

Two important Supreme Court rulings have shaped the process of appointing high court judges. In the Second Judges Case (1993), the court stated that no judge could be appointed unless the appointment adhered to the opinion of the chief justice of India. This means that the consultation with the chief justice carries significant weight in the appointment process. Following this, in the Third Judges Case (1998), the Supreme Court clarified that for appointing high court judges, the chief justice of India must also consult a group of the two senior-most judges of the Supreme Court, indicating that it’s not just the opinion of the chief justice of India that matters in these decisions.

Despite these rulings, a significant change occurred with the 99th Constitutional Amendment Act of 2014 and the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act of 2014. These laws were intended to replace the collegium system—where a group of senior judges decides appointments—with the new NJAC. However, in 2015, the Supreme Court declared both the 99th Constitutional Amendment and the NJAC Act unconstitutional, reinstating the collegium system. The Supreme Court reasoned that the NJAC would undermine the independence of the judiciary, a core principle in ensuring a fair and impartial justice system.

This ongoing evolution of the appointment process demonstrates the balance between executive and judicial powers and emphasizes the importance of maintaining an independent judiciary in India. Articles such as Article 124 and Article 217 of the Constitution further support this framework by outlining the establishment of the Supreme Court and high courts, respectively, and detailing the appointment process for judges.

Ultimately, the appointment of judges in India is a complex interplay of various laws, constitutional provisions, and judicial interpretations aimed at ensuring a fair and independent judiciary, which is fundamental for democracy and justice in the country.

Qualifications, Oath, and Salaries of High Court Judges in India

In India, there are specific qualifications needed for someone to become a judge in a High Court. First and foremost, the person must be a citizen of India. Beyond that, there are two paths to eligibility:

1. A candidate should either have served in a judicial role within Indian territory for a total of ten years, or
2. They should have worked as an advocate in a High Court, or multiple High Courts in succession, for at least ten years.

It's interesting to note that the Indian Constitution does not set a minimum age for appointing judges to High Courts, unlike in the case of Supreme Court judges. Additionally, unlike the Supreme Court provisions, there is no mention in the Constitution about appointing distinguished jurists for High Court positions.

Oath or Affirmation

Before taking up their roles, High Court judges must take an oath, which is administered by the state's governor or someone chosen by the governor. This oath includes several important commitments. Judges swear to be faithful to the Constitution of India and uphold the nation's sovereignty and integrity. They also commit to performing their duties honestly and to the best of their abilities, without allowing personal feelings or biases to interfere. Lastly, they pledge to uphold the Constitution and the laws of the land.

Salaries and Allowances

The salaries and benefits for High Court judges, including their allowances and pensions, are determined by the Parliament. They are guaranteed that their pay cannot be reduced to disadvantageous levels after they have been appointed, except in cases of a financial emergency. For example, in 2018, the salary of the Chief Justice of a High Court was raised from ₹90,000 to ₹2.5 lakh per month, while other judges saw their salaries increase from ₹80,000 to ₹2.25 lakh per month.

In addition to their salaries, High Court judges receive other benefits such as a sumptuary allowance and free accommodation. They are also provided with essential facilities like medical care, a car, and telephone services. After retirement, Chief Justices and judges are eligible for a pension that amounts to 50% of their last drawn salary.

Relevant Constitutional Articles

The qualifications and appointment of High Court judges are governed under Article 217 of the Indian Constitution. This article outlines the requirements and processes involved in the appointment of judges in High Courts. Additionally, their salaries and allowances can be reviewed under Article 125, which emphasizes that the appropriate authority must set these benefits. Furthermore, Article 124 stipulates matters pertaining to the appointment of judges to the Supreme Court, highlighting differences in the qualifications and appointment processes between the two levels of judiciary in India.

In summary, the process of becoming a High Court judge in India is regulated by clear qualifications and requirements as laid out by the Constitution. The various oaths taken by judges ensure their commitment to justice and the rule of law, while financial provisions reflect the respect and dignity afforded to such important positions in the judiciary.

Tenure, Removal, and Transfer of Judges in India

Tenure of Judges

In India, the Constitution does not set a fixed term for judges of the high courts. However, it does lay out four important points regarding their tenure.

Firstly, a high court judge remains in office until they reach the age of 62 years. If there are any disputes about a judge's age, the President of India makes the final decision after consulting with the Chief Justice of India.

Secondly, judges have the right to resign from their positions. They can do this by writing a letter to the President of India.

Thirdly, a high court judge can be removed from office by the President, but only after the Parliament recommends this action. This recommendation must be made through a specific process: both Houses of Parliament must support the move with a "special majority." This special majority means that more than half of the total members of each House, and at least two-thirds of those present and voting, must agree.

Lastly, a judge vacates their position in two scenarios: either when they become a judge of the Supreme Court or if they are transferred to another high court.

Removal of Judges

When it comes to removing a judge from the high court, the President takes action based on a recommendation from Parliament. The procedure for this removal is defined by the Judges (Inquiry) Act of 1968.

To initiate the removal process, at least 100 members from the Lok Sabha (the lower house of Parliament) or 50 members from the Rajya Sabha (the upper house) must sign and submit a motion to the Speaker or Chairman. The Speaker or Chairman has the discretion to admit or reject the motion. If the motion is accepted, a three-member committee is formed to investigate the charges against the judge. This committee must consist of the Chief Justice or a judge of the Supreme Court, the Chief Justice of a high court, and a distinguished jurist.

If the committee concludes that the judge has engaged in misconduct or is incapacitated, the Parliament can discuss the motion further. For removal to be finalized, both Houses must pass the motion with a special majority, and then an address is submitted to the President to officially remove the judge. Interestingly, no high court judge in India has ever been impeached to date.

Transfer of Judges

The transfer of judges is another significant aspect. The President of India can transfer a judge from one high court to another but must consult the Chief Justice of India before doing so. When a judge is transferred, they receive a compensatory allowance in addition to their salary, as determined by the Parliament.

In 1977, the Supreme Court ruled that transfers should only happen in exceptional cases and for the public's interest, not as a punishment. The 1994 ruling emphasized the need for judicial review to prevent arbitrary transfers of judges, stating that only the affected judge can challenge their transfer.

In a landmark case referred to as the "Third Judges case" in 1998, the Supreme Court stated that while transferring judges, the Chief Justice of India should also consult a group known as the collegium, which includes the four senior-most judges of the Supreme Court, as well as the Chief Justices from both the high court of origin and the high court of destination. This means the consultation should not rely solely on the Chief Justice of India’s views.

Conclusion

The process for dealing with the tenure, removal, and transfer of judges in India is carefully laid out in the Constitution and various laws. It ensures that judges can serve with independence while also being accountable. Articles 217 and 218 of the Indian Constitution provide the framework for the appointment, tenure, and removal of the high court judges. This careful balance is crucial for maintaining the integrity of the judiciary in the country.

Understanding Acting, Additional, and Retired Judges in Indian High Courts

In India, the judiciary plays a crucial role in upholding the law, and to ensure smooth functioning even during various transitions, there are provisions in place for appointing acting, additional, and retired judges in high courts.

Acting Chief Justice

The President of India has the authority to designate a judge from the high court as an acting chief justice when certain situations arise. This can occur in three main instances:

1. The position of chief justice is vacant, meaning there is currently no one in that role.
2. The chief justice is temporarily away for reasons such as illness or leave.
3. The chief justice is unable to fulfill their duties for any reason.

This is outlined in Article 223 of the Indian Constitution, which provides a framework for these appointments. The acting chief justice steps in to ensure that the court's functioning is not hindered during such gaps.

Additional and Acting Judges

In addition to the role of the acting chief justice, the President can appoint additional judges to the high court. These judges serve on a temporary basis, not exceeding two years. Their appointment can happen under two primary circumstances:

1. There is a sudden increase in the number of cases (business) that the high court needs to handle.
2. The court is facing a backlog of cases which requires more judges to clear.

Moreover, an acting judge can be appointed by the President when a regular judge (excluding the chief justice) is unable to carry out their duties. This might happen due to reasons like absence or if they have temporarily taken on the role of chief justice. An acting judge remains in position until the original judge returns. However, it is important to note that both additional and acting judges cannot serve beyond the age of 62, as specified under Article 217 of the Constitution of India, which sets the retirement age for high court judges.

Retired Judges

The chief justice of a high court can also request a retired judge to perform duties in the high court temporarily. This appointment is only possible if the retired judge agrees and if the President gives consent. These retired judges can be from the same high court or from another high court within India.

The allowances for these retired judges are determined by the President, and even though they are called to act as judges during their temporary term, they are not officially recognized as judges of that high court. They do, however, enjoy all the powers and jurisdiction that a judge of the high court would normally have, ensuring that they can fulfill their duties effectively.

Conclusion

The provisions for appointing acting, additional, and retired judges ensure that the judicial system in India runs smoothly, even amid vacancies or increased caseloads. The Indian Constitution lays the groundwork for these appointments, particularly through Articles 223 and 217, which outline the powers of the President and the roles judges play in maintaining justice. These measures reflect the flexible nature of the judiciary to adapt to changing circumstances while upholding the rule of law.

Independence of High Courts in India

The independence of high courts in India is fundamental to ensure they can perform their roles effectively without outside influence. It is important that high courts operate free from any interference from the government or political bodies, enabling them to deliver justice fairly and impartially.

1. Appointment of Judges

Judges at high courts are appointed by the President of India, who acts based on the advice of the council of ministers. However, this appointment is made in consultation with key figures in the judiciary, specifically the Chief Justice of India and the Chief Justice of the respective high court. This process ensures that judicial appointments are not simply based on political favors, thus protecting the integrity of the justice system.

2. Job Security for Judges

High court judges enjoy security of tenure, meaning they cannot be easily removed from their positions. The Constitution (Article 217) outlines that judges can only be removed through a procedure called impeachment and only for specific reasons such as proven misbehavior or incapacity. This means they are not at the mercy of the President’s whims, and it is noteworthy that no high court judge has ever been impeached.

3. Fixed Service Conditions

The terms of service for high court judges, which include their salaries, allowances, and pensions, are set by the Parliament and cannot be altered to their disadvantage after they have been appointed, except during a financial emergency (Article 125). This provision safeguards their financial stability and independence during their tenure.

4. Financial Independence

The expenses related to the salaries and allowances of high court judges, as well as those of their supporting staff, are drawn from the Consolidated Fund of the state. This means that these financial resources are not subject to annual voting by the state legislature, providing a layer of financial independence for the judiciary. It is also important to note that pensions for high court judges are paid from the Consolidated Fund of India, ensuring uniformity and stability.

5. Non-Discussion of Judicial Conduct

The Constitution prohibits any discussion regarding the conduct of high court judges in the Parliament or state legislature, unless an impeachment motion is in progress (Article 121). This rule protects judges from political backlash and allows them to exercise their duties without fear of public or political scrutiny.

6. Restrictions on Post-Retirement Activities

To maintain the integrity of the judiciary, retired permanent judges of high courts are not allowed to practice law or represent clients in any court or before any Authority in India, except for the Supreme Court and other high courts. This rule aims to prevent conflicts of interest where a retired judge might be engaged in favoritism in hopes of securing future appointments.

7. Power to Address Contempt

High courts have the authority to punish individuals for contempt, which means they can take action against anyone who disrespects their court or undermines their authority. This power is crucial for maintaining the dignity and integrity of the judiciary.

8. Staffing Independence

The Chief Justice of a high court has the power to appoint court officials and staff without any external interference from the executive branch of the government. This independence allows the judiciary to function smoothly and ensures that appointments are made based on merit and need (Article 229).

9. Inviolate Jurisdiction

The jurisdiction and powers given to high courts as per the Constitution cannot be diminished by either the Parliament or the state legislature. This ensures that high courts maintain their role and authority as a vital pillar of the Indian legal system.

In summary, various provisions in the Indian Constitution work together to ensure the independence and integrity of high courts. This structure is essential for upholding justice and maintaining public confidence in the judicial system, ensuring that high courts can operate without fear, favor, or external pressure.

Jurisdiction and Powers of the High Court

The High Court in India holds significant authority, similar to the Supreme Court, but it operates at the state level. It is the highest court of appeal within each state, meaning that it is the final place for most legal disputes in that area. One of the main roles of the High Court is to protect the Fundamental Rights of the citizens. These rights are essential freedoms guaranteed to all individuals, such as the right to equality and the right to privacy.

The High Court also has the responsibility to interpret the Constitution of India. The Constitution provides the framework for the country's laws and governance, and the High Court plays a crucial role in ensuring that these laws are understood and applied correctly. In addition to these roles, the High Court can supervise lower courts and provide advice on legal matters.

The Constitution itself does not go into deep detail on the specific powers and jurisdiction of the High Courts. Instead, Article 241 of the Constitution states that the powers of the High Court should be similar to what they were before the Constitution was established, in 1950. However, an important change is that the High Court now has jurisdiction over revenue matters, which means it can hear cases related to taxation and government revenue that it did not handle before the Constitution came into effect.

The Indian Constitution also grants the High Court several additional powers. For instance, under Article 226, the High Court can issue writs, which are legal orders directing a person, organization, or government to do or refrain from doing specific acts. This writ jurisdiction allows the High Court to enforce the Fundamental Rights of citizens. Other notable powers include the ability to supervise lower courts, control their functioning, and perform as a court of record, which means that its judgments and proceedings are documented and can be referenced in future cases.

The current powers and jurisdiction of the High Court can be categorized into several types, including:

1. Original Jurisdiction: This allows the High Court to hear certain cases directly without them going through lower courts.
2. Writ Jurisdiction: This enables the High Court to issue various types of writs to protect Fundamental Rights.
3. Appellate Jurisdiction: The High Court hears appeals against the decisions made by lower courts.
4. Supervisory Jurisdiction: It has the authority to oversee the workings of subordinate courts to ensure justice is served.
5. Control over Subordinate Courts: The High Court can make rules and regulations for the functioning of lower courts.
6. Court of Record: It holds records of judicial proceedings and has the authority to punish for contempt of court.
7. Power of Judicial Review: This allows the High Court to assess the legality of legislative actions and executive orders.

The jurisdiction and powers of the High Courts are governed by various laws and provisions. These include the constitutional articles mentioned above, Letters Patent (which are legal documents that establish the jurisdiction and powers of some High Courts), various Acts passed by the Parliament, state legislature acts, the Indian Penal Code of 1860, the Criminal Procedure Code of 1973, and the Civil Procedure Code of 1908.

In summary, the High Courts are essential to India's legal system, acting as the key protectors of citizens' rights and ensuring the functioning of justice at the state level. Their jurisdiction and powers are defined by a combination of constitutional provisions and legislative acts, enabling them to operate effectively within the framework of Indian law.

Original Jurisdiction of High Courts

Original jurisdiction refers to the ability of a high court to take on cases directly, rather than hearing appeals from lower courts. This means that high courts can address certain disputes right from the start without any prior court involvement.

High courts in India, which include the Calcutta, Bombay, Madras, and Delhi High Courts, have specific powers under the original jurisdiction. These powers cover a range of important issues. One of the primary areas is disputes related to elections, especially those involving members of Parliament and state legislatures. This ensures that matters concerning the election process can be resolved quickly and fairly at a high level.

Another important aspect of original jurisdiction deals with revenue matters. This includes disputes concerning tax collection or any actions taken to collect revenue. Such cases are critical because they often involve the state’s authority to collect taxes and the rights of the citizens.

Additionally, high courts can also enforce the fundamental rights of citizens. Under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution, individuals can approach the Supreme Court if their fundamental rights are violated, but they can also turn to high courts for relief. This helps in protecting the basic rights guaranteed to every citizen, such as the right to equality, freedom of speech, and the right to life.

Moreover, high courts can accept cases that lower courts have referred to them, especially when these cases involve interpreting the Constitution. This provision helps ensure that constitutional issues are handled at a higher judicial level, considering the importance and complexity of such matters.

In terms of civil matters, the four high courts mentioned have original civil jurisdiction over cases where the amount in dispute is substantial. This means that they can initially hear and decide these cases in the first instance, without the need for them to go through lower courts.

Before the year 1973, the Calcutta, Bombay, and Madras High Courts also had the power to hear original criminal cases. However, this power was completely removed by the Criminal Procedure Code of 1973, which restructured how criminal cases are handled in India.

For further reference, you can check Article 226 of the Indian Constitution, which empowers high courts to issue certain writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights and for any other purpose. Understanding original jurisdiction is essential for grasping how legal disputes involving election processes, revenue collection, and fundamental rights are managed in India’s judicial system.

Writ Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution

Article 226 of the Indian Constitution gives power to the High Courts to issue writs. Writs are formal orders that can be directed to any person, authority, or government. They are primarily used to protect the fundamental rights of the citizens but can also be used for other legal purposes. This means if someone feels that their legal rights, even if they are not fundamental rights, are being violated, they can seek help from the High Court.

The types of writs that the High Court can issue include:

1. Habeas Corpus - This writ is used to ensure that a person who is imprisoned or detained is brought before the court to determine whether the detention is lawful.

2. Mandamus - This is a command issued by the court to a lower court or a government body, instructing them to perform a duty that they are obligated to perform by law.

3. Certiorari - This writ is used to review the decisions of lower courts or tribunals to ensure that they have acted within their powers.

4. Prohibition - This writ prevents a lower court from continuing in a case where it does not have jurisdiction.

5. Quo Warranto - This is issued to question the authority of a person holding a public office.

One notable point is that the High Court can issue these writs not only for issues happening within its own state but also for matters occurring outside its boundaries, as long as the reason for the complaint (the cause of action) arises within its territorial limits.

It’s essential to highlight that the writ jurisdiction of the High Court does not stand alone; it runs parallel to the writ jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, which is governed by Article 32 of the Constitution. Citizens can approach either the High Court or the Supreme Court directly if their fundamental rights are violated. However, the High Court’s powers are broader because, while the Supreme Court can only issue writs for the fundamental rights violations, the High Court can address ordinary legal rights as well.

This distinction was clarified in the Chandra Kumar case (1997), where the Supreme Court stated that both the High Courts' and Supreme Court's writ jurisdictions are part of the basic structure of the Constitution. This means that these powers cannot be taken away or altered, even by changing the Constitution.

To summarize, Articles 32 and 226 of the Indian Constitution are crucial as they provide a legal framework for citizens to seek justice against violations of their rights. While Article 32 empowers the Supreme Court to entertain cases related to fundamental rights, Article 226 gives a wider scope to the High Courts, allowing them to address legal grievances more broadly. This ensures that justice is accessible and that the rights of individuals are protected efficiently under the law.

Appellate Jurisdiction of High Courts in India

High courts in India primarily serve as courts of appeal. This means that they hear cases that challenge the decisions made by lower courts, which are courts working within their geographic area. The appellate jurisdiction of a high court allows it to review both civil and criminal cases, making it broader than its original jurisdiction, which involves hearing cases for the first time.

Civil Matters

When it comes to civil matters, the appellate jurisdiction of high courts can be understood through several key points:

1. First Appeals: If a person wants to appeal against a decision made by district courts, additional district courts, or other lower courts, they can go directly to the high court, but only if the money involved exceeds a certain amount. In these first appeals, the high court will examine both legal and factual questions.

2. Second Appeals: There are also second appeals which can be made to the high court involving decisions from the district court or other subordinate courts. However, in these cases, the high court will only consider questions of law, not questions of fact.

3. Intra-Court Appeals: Some high courts allow what are called intra-court appeals. This happens when a single judge of the high court makes a decision. If a party wants to appeal that decision, they can take it to a division bench, which is made up of more than one judge from the same high court.

4. Tribunal Appeals: High courts also handle appeals from administrative and other tribunals, which are specialized courts. According to a ruling by the Supreme Court in 1997, these tribunals are under the authority of high courts. Therefore, anyone dissatisfied with a tribunal’s decision must first approach a high court before being allowed to take their case to the Supreme Court.

Criminal Matters

In criminal matters, high courts also have important appellate functions:

1. Appeals from Sessions Court: When a session court (a higher-level trial court) issues a judgment, particularly when the punishment includes more than seven years of imprisonment, an appeal can be made to the high court. If a death sentence is given, the high court needs to approve it before carrying it out, whether or not the convicted individual files an appeal.

2. Other Criminal Appeals: Certain other cases, as defined in the Criminal Procedure Code of 1973, allow appeals from judgments made by assistant sessions judges, metropolitan magistrates, or other judicial magistrates to be taken to the high court. This ensures that higher judicial oversight exists over criminal trials in smaller courts.

Conclusion

Overall, high courts in India serve a critical role in the judicial system, allowing individuals to seek justice through both civil and criminal appeals. They provide an essential check on the lower courts and act as a bridge between the common public and the higher judiciary. This framework is laid out in the Indian Constitution and various laws, ensuring that every individual has the right to appeal against decisions that may adversely affect them. The relevant constitutional articles include Article 226 and Article 227, which empower high courts to exercise supervisory jurisdiction over lower courts and tribunals. Through this extensive appellate jurisdiction, high courts help maintain the integrity and fairness of the legal system in India.

Supervisory Jurisdiction of High Courts in India

In the Indian legal system, high courts hold a very important role, especially when it comes to supervising lower courts and tribunals within their area. This power is known as "supervisory jurisdiction." It means that high courts oversee the functioning of these lower courts and ensure they are operating correctly and justly. However, it's important to note that this supervisory power does not extend to military courts or tribunals.

The high court has several specific powers under this jurisdiction. For example, it can request information or "returns" from the lower courts. This is a way for the high court to check on how these courts are doing in terms of managing cases and following proper procedures. Additionally, the high court can create and enforce general rules that regulate how these courts conduct their business, including the forms they use. It can also set standards for how records, like books and accounts, should be maintained and establish the fees that are payable to various officials and legal practitioners working in these courts.

The supervisory jurisdiction of a high court is quite broad and includes several key elements. Firstly, it applies to all courts and tribunals within the high court's geographic area, whether or not those courts are directly under the appellate authority of that high court. Secondly, this jurisdiction is not just administrative; it also involves judicial oversight, meaning the high court can examine the decisions made by these lower courts. It also retains the right to revise decisions, which is crucial for ensuring justice. Importantly, the high court can act on its own initiative, known in legal terms as "suo-motu," without waiting for someone to complain or file a petition.

Despite this extensive power, the high court cannot exercise its supervisory jurisdiction carelessly. It is considered an extraordinary power and should only be used in specific, serious situations. Generally, the high court will step in only under certain circumstances, such as when there is a clear excess of jurisdiction, a severe violation of fairness known as "natural justice," a mistake related to law, neglect of rulings made by higher courts, unreasonable findings, or obvious injustices.

In terms of legal authority, Articles 226 and 227 of the Indian Constitution grant high courts the right to supervise and make decisions concerning lower courts. Article 226 allows high courts to issue writs for enforcing fundamental rights and for any other purpose, while Article 227 ensures that high courts have the power of superintendence over all subordinate courts and tribunals. This structured legal framework helps maintain order and justice within the judicial system of India.

In summary, the supervisory jurisdiction of high courts is a vital mechanism in the Indian legal system. It ensures that justice is not only delivered but is also consistent and fair across all levels of the judiciary. The careful exercise of this power helps protect the rights of individuals and upholds the rule of law.

Control Over Subordinate Courts by High Courts

In India, the High Court plays an important role in overseeing the subordinate courts, which include various lower-level courts such as district and session courts. This oversight goes beyond just hearing appeals; the High Court also has significant administrative powers and responsibilities regarding these courts.

Firstly, the High Court is consulted by the Governor of the state when it comes to important decisions regarding the judicial system. This includes the appointment, postings, and promotions of district judges. Moreover, the High Court is involved in appointing individuals to the judicial services of the state, excluding district judges. This ensures that qualified individuals are given important roles within the judiciary.

In addition, the High Court has powers to manage the professional affairs of the judicial staff, including their transfers, promotions, and discipline. This power helps maintain a standard of professionalism and accountability within the judicial system.

Another important function of the High Court is its ability to withdraw cases from subordinate courts. If a case presents a significant legal question that relates to the interpretation of the Constitution, the High Court can take over the case. After reviewing it, the High Court can either resolve the issue and deliver a final decision or address the legal question and then send the case back to the subordinate court for further proceedings. This helps ensure that important constitutional matters are handled with the necessary care and attention.

Additionally, any legal rulings made by the High Court are binding on all subordinate courts within its jurisdiction. This means that, in the same way that the Supreme Court’s interpretations and rulings must be followed by all courts across India, the High Court’s decisions must also be respected by lower courts in its territory.

The authority of High Courts over subordinate courts is grounded in various articles of the Constitution of India, particularly Articles 226 and 227. Article 226 grants High Courts the power to issue writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights and for any other specific purpose. Article 227 gives High Courts supervisory jurisdiction over all courts and tribunals within their territorial jurisdiction, allowing them to ensure that lower courts act according to the law.

In summary, the control of High Courts over subordinate courts in India is multifaceted—it encompasses administrative authority, the ability to withdraw and adjudicate significant legal questions, and the obligation of subordinate courts to follow High Court rulings. This structure is essential to maintaining the rule of law and ensuring that justice is effectively administered throughout the judicial system in India.

A Court of Record

In the Indian legal system, a High Court acts as a "court of record." This means it has specific responsibilities and powers that are important for maintaining the integrity of justice in the country.

First, one of the primary roles of a High Court as a court of record is to keep detailed records of its judgments, proceedings, and actions. These records serve as a permanent memory of legal decisions made by the court. When these records are presented in a lower or subordinate court, they hold significant value as evidence. This means that these records cannot be disputed or questioned, reinforcing their importance as legal precedents and references in future cases. Legal precedents are previous court decisions that guide future cases, ensuring consistency and fairness in the law.

Second, a High Court has the authority to punish individuals for "contempt of court." While the Constitution of India does not define the term "contempt of court," it is clearly outlined in the Contempt of Courts Act of 1971. Under this law, contempt can be classified into two categories: civil and criminal. The High Court has the power to punish for contempt directed not only towards itself but also towards subordinate courts. However, there is a stipulation: if contempt involves an act that is also a punishable offence under the Indian Penal Code of 1860, then the High Court cannot take action. This means that, in such cases, the matter must be handled according to the provisions laid out in the Indian Penal Code instead of being processed as contempt.

Additionally, as a court of record, a High Court has the power to review and correct its own judgments or orders. This ability is crucial because it allows the court to rectify any mistakes or errors in its earlier decisions. Interestingly, this power of review is not explicitly granted by the Constitution, yet it is an essential function of the High Court to ensure justice is served accurately.

On a broader scale, it is significant to note that the Supreme Court of India has a more defined authority and structure when it comes to reviewing cases. The Constitution of India, specifically under Article 137, empowers the Supreme Court to review its own judgments or orders. This reflects a hierarchical structure in the Indian judiciary, where the Supreme Court holds the highest position and has explicit constitutional power to make corrections.

In summary, the role of High Courts as courts of record is central to the Indian judiciary system. They maintain important legal records that guide future cases, have the authority to punish for contempt to uphold the dignity of the court, and possess the capability to review their decisions to ensure justice is served correctly. Understanding these roles helps clarify how the judicial system in India strives to maintain order and fairness in the law.

Power of Judicial Review in India

Judicial review is an important power held by the High Courts in India. It allows these courts to check whether laws passed by the government, both at the central level and the state level, respect and follow the Constitution of India. If a law or an executive order is found to be against the Constitution, it can be declared invalid. This means that the government cannot enforce such laws because they do not hold legal weight.

Although the term "judicial review" is not specifically mentioned in the Indian Constitution, two important articles provide this power. Article 13 of the Constitution states that any law which is inconsistent with fundamental rights is void. This means that if a law contradicts the fundamental rights guaranteed to citizens, the High Courts can strike it down. Article 226 gives High Courts the power to issue directions, orders, or writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights or for any other purpose.

Challenges to the constitutional validity of a law or executive action can be made in a High Court on three main grounds. First, if the law violates fundamental rights, which are outlined in Part III of the Constitution, individuals can appeal to the court. Second, if the law was made by a body that did not have the authority to create that law (lack of competence), it can be challenged. Third, if a law contradicts any existing provisions of the Constitution, it can also be deemed unconstitutional.

The ability of High Courts to review laws was affected by the 42nd Amendment Act of 1976. This amendment limited the powers of High Courts by preventing them from judging the constitutional validity of any laws made by the central government. However, this restriction was amended with the 43rd Amendment Act of 1977, which restored the High Courts’ powers to carry out judicial review and declare laws as unconstitutional if they violated the Constitution.

In summary, the power of judicial review is essential for ensuring that all laws and executive orders remain consistent with the Constitution of India. It acts as a check on the legislative and executive branches of government, thus protecting the rights of citizens and maintaining the supremacy of the Constitution.

This balance between different branches of government is crucial for a functioning democracy, ensuring that no one branch has unchecked power. The ability of the judiciary to review laws helps to uphold the values of justice, equality, and liberty as enshrined in the Constitution.