High Courts

1. Constitutional position and territorial organisation

Article 214 provides for a High Court for each State, but this must be read with Article 231, which allows Parliament to establish a common High Court for two or more States, or for two or more States and a Union territory. Consequently, the number of High Courts is smaller than the number of States and Union territories combined. High Courts are constitutional courts rather than courts created solely by ordinary legislation.

India follows an integrated judicial system: the Supreme Court stands at the apex, High Courts operate at the State or regional level, and subordinate courts administer justice locally. High Courts are not administratively subordinate to the Supreme Court. Nevertheless, the law declared by the Supreme Court binds all courts under Article 141, and High Court decisions may be challenged before it through constitutionally or statutorily recognised routes.

Under Article 216, every High Court consists of a Chief Justice and such other judges as the President considers necessary to appoint. The Constitution does not prescribe a uniform numerical strength. Article 230 allows Parliament to extend a High Court’s jurisdiction to, or exclude it from, a Union territory. Delhi has its own High Court; several other Union territories fall within the jurisdiction of neighbouring High Courts.

• The Punjab and Haryana High Court serves Punjab, Haryana and the Union territory of Chandigarh.
• The Gauhati High Court serves Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh.
• The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh serves both Union territories.

2. Appointment, qualifications, tenure and transfer

Under Article 217, the President appoints High Court judges after consultation with the Chief Justice of India, the Governor of the State and, for a judge other than the Chief Justice, the Chief Justice of the High Court concerned. Judicial interpretation has developed the collegium system. Proposals ordinarily begin with the High Court collegium comprising its Chief Justice and two senior-most judges; the Supreme Court collegium dealing with High Court appointments comprises the Chief Justice of India and two senior-most Supreme Court judges.

A person must be an Indian citizen and must have held judicial office in India for at least ten years, or have been an advocate of a High Court, or successive High Courts, for at least ten years. The Constitution contains rules for counting certain related periods of service. Unlike appointment to the Supreme Court, being a distinguished jurist is not an independent qualification for appointment as a High Court judge.

Judges retire at 62 years and may resign by writing to the President. Under Articles 217 and 218, removal follows the demanding constitutional process applicable to Supreme Court judges: proved misbehaviour or incapacity, an address by each House of Parliament supported by the prescribed special majority, and a presidential order. The Governor cannot remove a High Court judge.

Article 222 authorises the President to transfer a judge between High Courts after consultation with the Chief Justice of India, operating within the judicially developed collegium framework. The judge’s consent is not constitutionally required. Article 223 concerns an acting Chief Justice; Article 224 permits additional judges for temporary workload increases or arrears, for up to two years, and acting judges in specified circumstances. Article 224A enables eligible retired judges to sit and act with the necessary consent and presidential approval.

• Article 219: the oath is administered by the Governor or a person appointed by the Governor.
• Article 220: a former permanent High Court judge may practise only before the Supreme Court and High Courts other than the one in which the judge served.
• Article 221 protects service conditions, subject to constitutional exceptions such as financial emergency.

3. Writ jurisdiction, judicial review and appeals

Article 226 empowers High Courts to issue directions, orders and writs, including habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, certiorari and quo warranto. Their writ jurisdiction is broader in subject matter than the Supreme Court’s Article 32 jurisdiction: Article 226 covers fundamental rights as well as other enforceable legal rights, whereas Article 32 specifically guarantees remedies for fundamental rights. An application under Article 226 is not itself a fundamental right.

Territorial competence is also important. A High Court may exercise writ jurisdiction where the cause of action arises wholly or partly within its territory, even when the respondent’s seat or residence is outside that territory. Writs are not confined invariably to government departments: mandamus may reach bodies performing public duties, while habeas corpus can address unlawful private detention.

Writ relief is discretionary. Courts ordinarily expect litigants to use an effective alternative statutory remedy, but this is not an absolute jurisdictional bar. Recognised exceptions include violations of natural justice, proceedings without jurisdiction and certain fundamental-rights or constitutional-validity challenges. In L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997), the Supreme Court held that judicial review under Articles 226 and 227 forms part of the basic structure; tribunals cannot completely replace High Court scrutiny.

High Courts also possess civil and criminal appellate and revisional jurisdiction under applicable laws. Ordinary original civil jurisdiction differs among High Courts and is not universal. Appeals to the Supreme Court may arise under Articles 132–134, with Article 134A governing consideration of certificates, while Article 136 provides the Supreme Court’s discretionary special-leave jurisdiction. Every High Court judgment does not automatically carry a right of appeal to the Supreme Court.

• Article 215 makes every High Court a court of record with power to punish for contempt of itself.
• Article 228 concerns withdrawal of qualifying subordinate-court cases involving a substantial constitutional-interpretation question.

4. Superintendence and control over subordinate courts

Article 227 grants each High Court superintendence over courts and tribunals throughout its territorial jurisdiction, except those constituted under laws relating to the Armed Forces. This power supports lawful functioning and correction of serious jurisdictional errors; it does not convert every challenge into a regular appeal. High Courts may call for returns and prescribe procedural rules and forms within constitutional limits.

Article 235 vests control over district courts and subordinate courts in the High Court. This includes important aspects of postings, promotions, leave and disciplinary control over the subordinate judiciary. Such control protects lower-court judges from improper executive influence. Article 50, a Directive Principle, directs the State to separate the judiciary from the executive in public services.

Appointment must be distinguished from control. Under Article 233, the Governor appoints district judges in consultation with the High Court. For direct recruitment from the Bar, a person not already in Union or State service must have at least seven years’ standing as an advocate or pleader and be recommended by the High Court. Article 234 governs recruitment of persons other than district judges, involving rules made by the Governor after consultation with the State Public Service Commission and High Court.

• Article 229 gives the Chief Justice substantial authority over High Court staff appointments, subject to constitutional provisions.
• High Court administrative expenses are charged on the State’s Consolidated Fund.

5. Independence, accountability and contemporary concerns

Security of tenure, protected service conditions, contempt powers, control over subordinate courts and restrictions on legislative discussion of judicial conduct support independence. Article 211 prohibits discussion in a State legislature about the conduct of Supreme Court or High Court judges in discharging their duties. Independence nevertheless coexists with reasoned judgments, open-court proceedings, appellate scrutiny and constitutional removal mechanisms.

The Second Judges Case (1993) and the Third Judges Case opinion (1998) shaped collegium-based appointments. In 2015, the Supreme Court invalidated the Ninety-ninth Constitutional Amendment and the National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, restoring the collegium framework. Appointment transparency remains debated alongside vacancies, mounting arrears, litigation costs and unequal access. Reforms include timely appointments, better case management, legal aid and the e-Courts programme. The National Judicial Data Grid provides official, regularly updated information; pendency figures should always be cited with a date.

• Article 348 generally requires English in High Court proceedings, subject to constitutionally and statutorily permitted language arrangements.
• Do not confuse judicial independence with immunity from appellate correction, lawful accountability or public scrutiny.

Previous year questions

No UPSC question has been asked directly on this micro-topic yet. Use the practice questions below.

Practice questions