High Courts of India: Guardians at the State Level

When a citizen’s fundamental rights are violated, or when a lower court delivers a judgment that seems manifestly unjust, where do they turn before reaching the Supreme Court? The answer, in most cases, is the High Court. Positioned at the apex of each state’s judicial hierarchy, High Courts are far more than just intermediate appellate forums – they are constitutional courts vested with sweeping powers to protect rights, supervise lower courts, and ensure the administration of justice across their territorial jurisdiction. Understanding how they are constituted, how judges are appointed, and what powers they wield is fundamental to any serious study of the Indian legal system.

Constitutional foundation of High Courts 🔗

The existence of High Courts is not a matter of legislative convenience – it is a constitutional mandate. Article 214 of the Constitution categorically states that there shall be a High Court for each state. This guarantee ensures that every state has an independent, competent judicial authority operating within its territory. The detailed framework governing High Courts is found in Chapter V of Part VI of the Constitution, spanning Articles 214 to 231. These provisions collectively govern the composition, appointment, jurisdiction, and powers of High Courts in a uniform manner across the country – a feature that distinguishes India’s High Courts from state courts in federal systems like the United States, where state courts vary widely based on their individual state constitutions.

Presently, India has 25 High Courts, six of which exercise jurisdiction over more than one state or union territory. The Calcutta High Court, established on 14 May 1862, is the oldest. Some states share a common High Court – for instance, Punjab and Haryana share one, and several north-eastern states are served by the Gauhati High Court. Where a High Court’s workload from a particular region is high, permanent benches are established there. Smaller regions may be served by circuit benches that sit for limited periods each year.

Composition of a High Court 🔗

Every High Court consists of a Chief Justice and such number of other judges as the President of India may determine from time to time. Notably, the Constitution does not fix a specific strength for any High Court – the President decides this based on the workload, dividing the average institution of main cases over the last five years by the national average disposal rate. This flexibility allows the judiciary to respond to increasing pendency without requiring constitutional amendments.

In addition to regular judges, the Constitution provides for additional judges under Article 224, who may be appointed for a period not exceeding two years when there is a temporary increase in the business of the court. Article 224A further allows a Chief Justice to request a retired judge, with the President’s consent, to sit and act as a judge when needed. These provisions collectively ensure that High Courts have sufficient judicial strength to manage their dockets without undue delay.

Appointment of judges: the constitutional process 🔗

The appointment of High Court judges is governed by Article 217 of the Constitution. Every judge is appointed by the President by warrant under his hand and seal, after consultation with the Chief Justice of India and the Governor of the concerned state. In the case of judges other than the Chief Justice, the Chief Justice of the High Court is also consulted. When a common High Court serves two or more states, the Governors of all those states must be consulted.

The Chief Justice of a High Court is appointed separately – through a process where the Chief Justice of the High Court initiates the proposal for filling vacancies, which travels through the state government to the Union Law Minister, and finally to the Prime Minister, who advises the President. Importantly, Chief Justices of High Courts are appointed from other High Courts rather than elevated from within the same court, to preserve institutional independence. In practice, seniority among puisne judges guides who is considered for elevation as Chief Justice.

The collegium system and its evolution 🔗

While Article 217 speaks of “consultation,” the Supreme Court’s landmark judgments – particularly the Second Judges Case (1993) – established that such consultation is binding, not merely advisory. This gave rise to the collegium system, under which the Chief Justice of India and senior Supreme Court judges effectively control judicial appointments. For High Court appointments, the High Court collegium headed by the Chief Justice of that court recommends names, which then require approval from the Supreme Court collegium before reaching the government. In 2015, the Supreme Court struck down the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC), holding that it undermined judicial independence by giving the executive a decisive role in appointments – a function the Court held to be a basic feature of the Constitution.

Qualifications and tenure 🔗

To be appointed as a judge of a High Court, a person must be a citizen of India and must have either held a judicial office in India for at least ten years, or been an advocate of a High Court (or two or more High Courts in succession) for at least ten years. Unlike the Supreme Court, there is no provision for appointing a distinguished jurist as a High Court judge, and no minimum age is prescribed. A judge holds office until the age of 62 years – as against 65 for Supreme Court judges. A judge may resign by writing to the President or may be removed by the President on the recommendation of Parliament in the same manner as a Supreme Court judge, requiring a two-thirds majority in both Houses on grounds of proven misbehaviour or incapacity.

High Court as a court of record and its contempt jurisdiction 🔗

Article 215 of the Constitution declares every High Court to be a Court of Record – meaning its proceedings, judgments, and acts are permanently preserved and carry evidentiary value that cannot be questioned in any subordinate court. All decisions of a High Court constitute binding precedents for all courts within its territorial jurisdiction.

As a Court of Record, a High Court has the inherent power to punish for contempt of itself. This power – regulated but not curtailed by the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – applies to both civil contempt (willful disobedience of the court’s orders) and criminal contempt (acts that scandalise or obstruct the administration of justice). Importantly, under Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, a High Court also has power to punish for contempt of subordinate courts within its jurisdiction. However, a High Court cannot punish for contempt of the Supreme Court – that power rests exclusively with the Supreme Court under Article 129.

Jurisdiction of High Courts: a multi-layered framework 🔗

High Courts in India exercise several distinct types of jurisdiction. Each serves a specific constitutional or legal purpose, and together they make the High Court the most versatile court in the state judicial hierarchy.

Original jurisdiction 🔗

Original jurisdiction means the High Court can hear a case for the first time, without it passing through a lower court. This jurisdiction covers specific subject matters: revenue cases involving land revenue and tax assessments, admiralty and maritime matters, testamentary cases (probate and letters of administration), and company law matters. Certain High Courts – like the Bombay, Calcutta, and Madras High Courts – also have original civil jurisdiction over cases above a specified monetary value, inherited from their colonial-era charters. Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is also a form of original jurisdiction, even though its purpose is constitutional protection rather than adjudication of private disputes.

Appellate jurisdiction 🔗

A High Court is primarily a court of appeal. In civil matters, it hears appeals from the decisions of district courts and other subordinate civil courts. In criminal matters, it hears appeals from sessions courts, including appeals against conviction, acquittal, and sentencing. Certain statutes – such as the Income Tax Act, the Customs Act, and others – also provide a direct right of appeal to the High Court from orders of statutory authorities. Under Article 228, if a case pending before a subordinate court involves a substantial question of law concerning the interpretation of the Constitution, the High Court may withdraw the case and decide the constitutional question itself before returning the case to the lower court for disposal.

Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 🔗

Perhaps the most significant power of a High Court is its writ jurisdiction under Article 226. Every High Court can issue writs – including habeas corpus, mandamus, certiorari, prohibition, and quo warranto – to any person or authority, including the government, for the enforcement of fundamental rights and for any other legal purpose. Unlike Article 32 (the Supreme Court’s writ jurisdiction), Article 226 is broader: it applies not just to fundamental rights but to any legal right. A writ petition under Article 226 invokes the High Court’s original jurisdiction. It can be filed by any aggrieved party, and the High Court exercises it to quash illegal orders, enforce rights, and correct jurisdictional errors of subordinate courts or tribunals.

Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 🔗

Article 227 confers upon every High Court the power of superintendence over all courts and tribunals within its territorial jurisdiction – except courts or tribunals constituted under laws relating to the armed forces. This is a broader, more flexible power than Article 226. As clarified in multiple Supreme Court decisions, Article 227 is not an original jurisdiction but a supervisory one – akin to appellate or revisional jurisdiction. The High Court can intervene when a subordinate court acts without jurisdiction, exceeds its jurisdiction, or exercises jurisdiction in a manner that results in grave injustice.

The key differences between Articles 226 and 227 are practically significant. Under Article 226, the High Court can only act when approached by an aggrieved party. Under Article 227, the court can intervene suo motu – on its own motion – without waiting for a petition. Further, while Article 226 generally allows the court to quash an impugned order, Article 227 allows the court to not only quash the order but also issue directions to the subordinate court on how to proceed, or even substitute the lower court’s decision with its own. No appeal lies against an order under Article 227, making the High Court’s supervisory decision final on those matters.

Disciplinary and supervisory role over subordinate courts 🔗

Beyond its adjudicatory powers, the High Court plays a critical administrative and disciplinary role over the entire subordinate judiciary within the state. Under Article 235, the control over district courts and courts subordinate to them – including the posting, promotion, and granting of leave to judicial officers – vests in the High Court. This control is distinct from the power of appointment, which vests in the Governor in consultation with the High Court. The High Court may call for records from subordinate courts, inspect their functioning, issue circulars and practice directions, and take disciplinary action against errant judicial officers. This holistic supervisory role ensures that subordinate courts function within the bounds of the law and maintain consistent judicial standards across the state.

High Courts in the constitutional scheme: why they matter 🔗

The significance of High Courts extends beyond their formal jurisdiction. In practice, they handle the vast majority of constitutional litigation in India. Writ petitions – including public interest litigations (PILs) – filed before High Courts have produced landmark judgments on environmental law, prisoners’ rights, custodial violence, and government accountability. The Supreme Court in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997) confirmed that judicial review by High Courts is an integral and inviolable feature of the Constitution, and that even statutory tribunals remain subject to their supervisory jurisdiction. The independence of the High Court judiciary – secured through constitutional appointment processes, security of tenure, and protection of service conditions – is therefore not an institutional privilege but a structural necessity for the rule of law.

High Courts also function as the last real access point to constitutional justice for most citizens. While the Supreme Court operates in New Delhi, High Courts exist in every state, and their benches and circuit courts extend their reach further. For a litigant who cannot afford to approach the Supreme Court, the High Court is often the highest court they will ever realistically access. This makes the integrity, efficiency, and independence of High Courts a matter of direct public concern.

What do you think? Given that the collegium system operates without any statutory basis and has been criticised for its lack of transparency, should India establish a more structured and publicly accountable process for appointing High Court judges – and if so, how can judicial independence be preserved within such a system? Also, considering how broad the supervisory powers of High Courts are under Articles 226 and 227, do you think there should be clearer legislative guidelines on when a High Court should intervene in the decisions of subordinate courts?

References

1. https://www.gktoday.in/article-214/
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_courts_of_India
3. https://www.constitutionofindia.net/articles/article-217-appointment-and-conditions-of-the-office-of-a-judge-of-a-high-court/
4. https://www.drishtijudiciary.com/editorial/judicial-appointments
5. https://thelawmatics.in/article-215-power-of-contempt-of-high-court/
6. https://livelaw.in/news-updates/jurisdiction-article-215-section-20-contempt-of-court-act-otios-madhya-pradesh-high-court-178468
7. https://lawbhoomi.com/jurisdiction-of-high-courts-in-india/
8. https://blog.ipleaders.in/all-you-need-to-know-about-article-226-of-the-indian-constitution/
9. https://www.mondaq.com/india/court-procedure/691090/articles-226-and-227-of-the-constitution-of-india-their-scope-powers-and-differences