High Court
The Indian judiciary follows a single integrated system, with the High Courts positioned below the Supreme Court and above subordinate courts.
Each state judiciary consists of a High Court and a hierarchy of subordinate courts, with the High Court occupying the top position in state judicial administration.
The institution of the High Court in India dates back to 1862, when the first High Courts were set up at Calcutta, Bombay, and Madras.
In 1866, a fourth High Court was established at Allahabad. Over time, each province in British India acquired its own High Court.
After 1950, High Courts in provinces were designated as High Courts for the corresponding states in independent India.
Constitution of High Courts in India
- In the year 1861 the Indian High courts Act and the Indian Councils Act were passed by the British Parliament. The former provided for the abolition of the Supreme Courts of Judicature and the Sadar Diwani Adalats and the constitution of the High Courts of Judicature in their place in the three Presidency towns. By section 16 a power was reserved to Her Majesty to constitute similar High Courts in other territories which were not within the local jurisdiction of any of the three proposed High Courts of Calcutta, Bombay and Madras.
- The Indian Councils Act empowered the Governor-General to create local Legislatures in various provinces, though the exercise of this power, with regard to the North Western Provinces was not made till the year 1886.
- The Calcutta, Madras and Bombay high courts were established by the Royal Charter in the year 1862. In 1865, however, fresh Letters Patents were issued for these courts which are also known as the amended Letters Patent.
- The Calcutta High Court is the oldest High Court in India. It was established on 1st July, 1862 under the High Court’s Act, 1861. It has jurisdiction over the state of West Bengal and the Union Territory of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands.
Constitutional Provisions and Territorial Jurisdiction
- Articles 214 to 231 in Part VI of the Constitution provide for High Courts.
- While the Constitution originally provided for a High Court in each state, the Seventh Amendment Act, 1956 empowered Parliament to establish a common High Court for two or more states, or for two or more states and a union territory.
- The territorial jurisdiction of a High Court is co-terminus with the state’s territory. Similarly, the jurisdiction of a common High Court extends across the concerned states and union territories.
- As of 2025, there are 25 High Courts in India.
- Out of these, three High Courts have jurisdiction over more than one state.
- Among the eight Union Territories, Delhi alone has its own High Court (since 1966).
- Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh share a common High Court.
- Other Union Territories fall under the jurisdiction of different state High Courts.
- Parliament has the power to extend or curtail the jurisdiction of any High Court in relation to Union Territories.
Composition
- Every High Court (exclusive or common) consists of a Chief Justice and such other judges as the President may deem necessary.
- The Constitution does not fix the number of judges.
- The strength of judges in a High Court is determined by the President from time to time, depending on the workload and requirements.
Appointment of High Court Judges
- Judges of a High Court are appointed by the President of India.
- Chief Justice of High Court: Appointed by the President after consultation with the Chief Justice of India (CJI) and the Governor of the state concerned.
- Other Judges: Appointed by the President in consultation with the CJI, the Governor of the state, and the Chief Justice of that High Court.
- In case of a common High Court for two or more states, the Governors of all states concerned are consulted.
Judicial Pronouncements on Appointment
- Second Judges Case (1993): The Supreme Court ruled that no appointment of a High Court judge can be made unless it is in conformity with the opinion of the Chief Justice of India.
- Third Judges Case (1998): The Court clarified that in appointments, the CJI must consult a collegium of two senior-most judges of the Supreme Court. Thus, the CJI’s opinion alone is not sufficient.
- Fourth Judges Case (2015): The Supreme Court struck down the 99th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2014 and the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act, 2014 as unconstitutional, declaring that they undermined judicial independence. The Collegium System was thus restored.
Qualifications of High Court Judges
According to the Constitution, a person is eligible to be appointed as a judge of a High Court if:
- Citizenship: He/She is a citizen of India.
- Judicial or Legal Experience:
- Has held a judicial office in the territory of India for at least 10 years, OR
- Has been an advocate of a High Court (or of two or more such courts in succession) for at least 10 years.
Key Points to Note
- The Constitution does not prescribe any minimum age for appointment as a High Court judge.
- Unlike the Supreme Court, there is no provision for appointing a distinguished jurist as a judge of a High Court.
Oath or Affirmation of High Court Judges
Before assuming office, every person appointed as a judge of a High Court must make and subscribe an oath or affirmation before the Governor of the state (or a person appointed by the Governor for this purpose).
Contents of the Oath
A High Court judge swears:
- To bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India.
- To uphold the sovereignty and integrity of India.
- To duly and faithfully and to the best of his/her ability, knowledge and judgement perform the duties of the office without fear or favour, affection or ill-will; and
- To uphold the Constitution and the laws.
Salaries, Allowances, and Pension of High Court Judges
The salaries, allowances, privileges, leave, and pension of High Court judges are determined by Parliament from time to time.
- These cannot be varied to their disadvantage after appointment, except during a Financial Emergency under Article 360.
Tenure of High Court Judges
The Constitution does not prescribe a fixed tenure for High Court judges. Instead, it lays down specific provisions regarding when and how a judge vacates office:
Retirement Age:
- A High Court judge holds office until the age of 62 years.
- Any dispute about a judge’s age is decided by the President, after consulting the Chief Justice of India. The President’s decision is final.
Resignation:
- A judge may resign by writing to the President of India.
Removal:
A judge can be removed from office by the President, on the basis of a parliamentary recommendation, following the same procedure as that for Supreme Court judges (i.e., impeachment).
Vacating Office:
Removal of High Court Judges
- A judge of a High Court can be removed from office by the President of India, but only after an address by both Houses of Parliament has been presented in the same session, supported by a special majority (i.e., a majority of the total membership of that House and not less than two-thirds of members present and voting).
- Grounds for Removal:
- Proved misbehaviour
- Incapacity
- Thus, a High Court judge can be removed in the same manner and on the same grounds as a Supreme Court judge.
- The Judges Enquiry Act (1968) regulates the procedure relating to the removal of a judge of a high court by the process of impeachment.
- Procedure under the Judges Inquiry Act, 1968
- A removal motion must be signed by 100 members of the Lok Sabha or 50 members of the Rajya Sabha.
- The Speaker (Lok Sabha) or Chairman (Rajya Sabha) may admit or reject the motion.
- If admitted, a three-member committee is set up by the Speaker (Lok Sabha) or Chairman (Rajya Sabha) to investigate the charges. The committee consists of:
- The Chief Justice or a judge of the Supreme Court.
- The Chief Justice of a High Court.
- A distinguished jurist.
- If the committee finds the judge guilty of misbehaviour or incapacity, the House can consider the motion.
- The motion must then be passed in each House by a special majority.
- An address is presented to the President for removal.
- The President issues the removal order.
Important Fact
- No High Court judge has ever been impeached so far.
Transfer of High Court Judges
- The President of India can transfer a judge from one High Court to another, but only after consultation with the Chief Justice of India (CJI).
- On transfer, the judge is entitled to receive a compensatory allowance, as determined by Parliament, in addition to salary.
Judicial Pronouncements on Transfer
- 1977 (SC Ruling):
- Transfers can be made only in public interest.
- Transfer should be an exceptional measure, not a form of punishment.
- 1994 (SC Ruling):
- Judicial review is necessary to check arbitrariness in transfers.
- However, only the transferred judge has the right to challenge the decision.
- Third Judges Case (1998):
- The CJI must consult a collegium of four senior-most Supreme Court judges.
- The Chief Justice of both the High Courts (the transferring and receiving court) must also be consulted.
- Thus, the CJI’s sole opinion does not constitute the required consultation.
Acting Chief Justice of a High Court
The President of India can appoint a judge of a High Court as the Acting Chief Justice of that High Court in the following situations:
- When the office of the Chief Justice of the High Court is vacant.
- When the Chief Justice of the High Court is temporarily absent.
- When the Chief Justice of the High Court is unable to perform the duties of his/her office.
Additional and Acting Judges of High Courts (Article 224)
Additional Judges
The President of India can appoint duly qualified persons as additional judges of a High Court for a temporary period not exceeding two years, in the following cases:
- When there is a temporary increase in the business of the High Court.
- When there are arrears of work in the High Court.
Acting Judges
The President can also appoint a duly qualified person as an acting judge of a High Court when:
- A judge (other than the Chief Justice) is unable to perform duties due to absence or other reasons.
- A judge is appointed temporarily as Acting Chief Justice of that High Court.
Note:
- An acting judge holds office until the permanent judge resumes duties.
- Both additional and acting judges cannot hold office after attaining 62 years of age.
Retired Judges of High Courts (Article 224A)
- At any time, the Chief Justice of a High Court can request a retired judge of that High Court, or of any other High Court in India, to act as a judge of that High Court for a temporary period.
- This can be done only with:
- The previous consent of the President, and
- The consent of the retired judge concerned.
Privileges and Powers
- Such a retired judge is entitled to allowances as determined by the President.
- He/She enjoys all the jurisdiction, powers, and privileges of a judge of that High Court.
- However, he/she is not otherwise deemed to be a judge of that High Court.
Independence of High Courts
The independence of the High Courts is essential for the impartial and effective discharge of their duties. High Courts must be free from executive or legislative interference, ensuring that justice is delivered “without fear or favour, affection or ill-will.”
The Constitution has made several provisions to safeguard the independence of High Courts:
1. Mode of Appointment
- Judges of a High Court are appointed by the President, in consultation with the Chief Justice of India (CJI) and the Chief Justice of the High Court.
- This system restricts executive discretion and prevents appointments based solely on political or personal considerations.
2. Security of Tenure
- Judges enjoy security of tenure.
- They can be removed only by the President, and only on the grounds of proved misbehaviour or incapacity, through the impeachment procedure.
- They do not hold office at the President’s pleasure.
3. Fixed Service Conditions
- Salaries, allowances, leave, privileges, and pensions are determined by Parliament.
- These conditions cannot be changed to their disadvantage after appointment, except during a Financial Emergency.
4. Expenses Charged on Consolidated Fund
- Salaries, allowances, pensions, and administrative expenses of High Courts are charged on the Consolidated Fund of the State.
- They are non-votable by the state legislature.
- The pension of a High Court judge is charged on the Consolidated Fund of India.
5. Conduct of Judges Not Discussed in Legislature
6. Ban on Practice after Retirement
- A retired permanent judge of a High Court cannot practice in any court or authority in India except the Supreme Court and other High Courts.
- This prevents judges from delivering biased judgments in the hope of future professional gain.
7. Power to Punish for Contempt
- High Courts can punish anyone for contempt of court, ensuring their authority, dignity, and honour are preserved.
8. Freedom to Appoint Staff
9. Jurisdiction Cannot Be Curtailed
Jurisdiction and Powers of High Courts
Like the Supreme Court, High Courts are vested with extensive and effective powers. They function as the highest court of appeal in a state, the protector of Fundamental Rights, and are empowered to interpret the Constitution. Additionally, they have supervisory and consultative roles.
The Constitution does not provide an exhaustive list of High Court powers. Instead, it states that the jurisdiction of a High Court shall be the same as it was immediately before the commencement of the Constitution, with the addition of revenue jurisdiction(which it did not enjoy in the pre- constitution era).Over time, High Courts have been conferred more powers through constitutional provisions, parliamentary and state laws, and judicial pronouncements.
Currently, the jurisdiction and powers of a High Court are governed by:
- Constitutional provisions
- Letters Patent (for older chartered High Courts)
- Acts of Parliament
- Acts of State Legislatures
- Indian Penal Code, 1860
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Original Jurisdiction of High Courts
The original jurisdiction of a High Court refers to its power to hear cases directly in the first instance, rather than on appeal from lower courts.
Scope of Original Jurisdiction
High Courts exercise original jurisdiction in the following matters:
- Election Disputes
- Disputes relating to the elections of Members of Parliament and State Legislatures.
- Revenue Matters
- Cases concerning revenue or acts done in relation to revenue collection.
- Fundamental Rights Enforcement
- High Courts can hear petitions for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights under Article 226.
- Constitutional Interpretation
- Cases transferred from subordinate courts to the High Court when they involve interpretation of the Constitution.
- Civil Jurisdiction of Chartered High Courts
- The four High Courts of Calcutta, Bombay, Madras, and Delhi have original civil jurisdiction in cases of higher value (commercial/civil disputes).
Historical Note
- Before 1973, the Calcutta, Bombay, and Madras High Courts also enjoyed original criminal jurisdiction.
- This was abolished by the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.
Writ Jurisdiction of High Courts (Article 226)
Constitutional Provision
- Article 226 empowers every High Court to issue writs such as Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Certiorari, Prohibition, and Quo Warranto.
- These writs may be issued for:
- Enforcement of Fundamental Rights of citizens.
- For any other purpose, i.e., enforcement of ordinary legal rights.
Territorial Jurisdiction
- High Courts can issue writs to any person, authority, or government:
- Within their territorial jurisdiction.
- Even outside their territorial jurisdiction, if the cause of action arises within their territorial limits.
Relation with Supreme Court’s Writ Powers
- Writ jurisdiction of the High Court is concurrent with that of the Supreme Court under Article 32.
- This means an aggrieved person can move either the High Court or the Supreme Court for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights.
- However, the writ jurisdiction of High Courts is wider because:
- Supreme Court can issue writs only for Fundamental Rights.
- High Courts can issue writs for Fundamental Rights as well as ordinary legal rights.
Judicial Pronouncement
- Chandra Kumar Case (1997): The Supreme Court held that the writ jurisdiction of both the Supreme Court (Article 32) and High Courts (Article 226) is part of the Basic Structure of the Constitution.
- Hence, it cannot be curtailed or excluded, even by a constitutional amendment.
Appellate Jurisdiction of High Courts
A High Court is primarily a court of appeal. It hears appeals against the judgments of subordinate courts functioning within its territorial jurisdiction. Its appellate jurisdiction extends to both civil and criminal matters, making it broader than its original jurisdiction.
(a) Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
- First Appeals:
- Appeals from the orders and judgments of district courts, additional district courts, and other subordinate courts lie directly to the High Court.
- Such appeals may involve both questions of law and fact, if the amount involved exceeds the stipulated limit.
- Second Appeals:
- Appeals from the orders and judgments of district courts or subordinate courts lie to the High Court in cases involving questions of law only (not questions of fact).
- Intra-Court Appeals:
- In some High Courts, if a single judge has decided a case (under original or appellate jurisdiction), an appeal from that decision can be made to a Division Bench of the same High Court.
- Appeals from Tribunals:
- Appeals from the decisions of administrative and other tribunals lie to a Division Bench of the High Court.
- In Chandra Kumar Case (1997), the Supreme Court held that tribunals are subject to the writ jurisdiction of High Courts.
- Therefore, an aggrieved party cannot directly approach the Supreme Court against a tribunal decision without first approaching the High Court.
(b) Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction
- Appeals from Sessions Courts:
- Appeals from the judgments of Sessions Courts and Additional Sessions Courts lie to the High Court if the sentence is imprisonment for more than seven years.
- Importantly, a death sentence (capital punishment) awarded by a Sessions Court or Additional Sessions Court must be confirmed by the High Court, whether or not the convicted person appeals.
- Appeals from Magistrates’ Courts:
In certain cases specified in the Criminal Procedure Code (1973), appeals from the judgments of Assistant Sessions Judges, Metropolitan Magistrates, or other Judicial Magistrates also lie to the High Court.
Supervisory Jurisdiction of High Courts (Article 227)
A High Court has the power of superintendence over all courts and tribunals functioning within its territorial jurisdiction, except for military courts and tribunals.
Scope of Supervisory Powers
A High Court may:
- Call for returns from subordinate courts and tribunals.
- Frame general rules and prescribe forms for regulating their practice and proceedings.
- Prescribe forms in which books, entries and accounts are to be kept by them; and
- Settle the fees payable to sheriffs, clerks, officers, and legal practitioners.
Features of Supervisory Jurisdiction
The power of superintendence is very broad because:
- It extends to all courts and tribunals, regardless of whether they fall under the High Court’s appellate jurisdiction.
- It covers both administrative and judicial superintendence.
- It is also a form of revisional jurisdiction, allowing the High Court to correct errors.
- It can be exercised suo motu (on its own), even without an application from any party.
Limitations
- This power does not give the High Court unlimited authority over subordinate courts and tribunals.
- It is an extraordinary power, to be used sparingly and in appropriate cases only.
- Typically, it is limited to cases involving:
- Excess of jurisdiction.
- Gross violation of natural justice.
- Manifest errors of law.
- Disregard to the law of superior courts,
- Perverse findings,
- Manifest injustice.
Control over Subordinate Courts (Article 235)
In addition to its appellate and supervisory powers, a High Court also exercises administrative control over subordinate courts within its jurisdiction. This ensures effective functioning and uniformity in the state judiciary.
Scope of Control
- Appointments & Postings
- The High Court is consulted by the Governor in matters relating to:
- Appointment, posting, and promotion of district judges.
- Appointment of persons to the judicial service of the state (other than district judges).
- Service Matters
- The High Court deals with posting, promotion, leave, transfers, and disciplinary matters of the judicial service of the state (excluding district judges).
- Withdrawal of Cases
- The High Court can withdraw a case from a subordinate court if it involves a substantial question of law relating to the interpretation of the Constitution.
- It may:
- Dispose of the case itself, OR
- Decide the constitutional question and return the case to the subordinate court with its judgment.
- Binding Precedent
- The law declared by the High Court is binding on all subordinate courts within its territorial jurisdiction.
- This is similar to how the law declared by the Supreme Court is binding on all courts in India.
High Court as a Court of Record (Article 215)
As a Court of Record, a High Court enjoys special powers that strengthen its authority and role in the judicial system.
Powers of a Court of Record
- Judicial Records
- The judgments, proceedings, and acts of High Courts are recorded for perpetual memory and testimony.
- These records are of evidentiary value and cannot be questioned when produced before subordinate courts.
- They also serve as legal precedents and references.
- Contempt of Court
- A High Court has the power to punish for contempt of itself.
- Contempt may be civil or criminal, as defined under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
- High Courts can also punish for contempt of subordinate courts. However, they cannot take cognizance of contempt in respect of a subordinate court, if the act is punishable under the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
- Power of Review
- As a Court of Record, a High Court has the inherent power to review and correct its own judgments, orders, or decisions, even though this is not explicitly conferred by the Constitution.
- By contrast, the Supreme Court has been specifically conferred review powers under Article 137.
Power of Judicial Review
Judicial Review is the power of a High Court to examine the constitutionality of legislative enactments and executive orders of both the Central and State governments.
- If found violative of the Constitution (ultra vires), such laws or orders can be declared illegal, unconstitutional, and invalid (null and void).
- Once declared invalid, they cannot be enforced by the government.
Constitutional Basis
- The term judicial review is not expressly mentioned in the Constitution.
- However, Articles 13 and 226 explicitly confer this power on High Courts.
Grounds for Judicial Review
A legislative enactment or executive order may be struck down by a High Court if:
- It infringes Fundamental Rights (Part III of the Constitution).
- It is beyond the competence of the authority that enacted or issued it.
- It is repugnant to constitutional provisions.
Amendments and Judicial Review
- 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1976: Curtailed the powers of High Courts by prohibiting them from examining the constitutional validity of Central laws.
- 43rd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1977: Restored the original position, re-empowering High Courts to review both State and Central laws.
High Courts form the backbone of India’s state-level judiciary, standing as the guardian of Fundamental Rights and the highest court of appeal in states. With extensive jurisdiction—original, appellate, writ, supervisory, and judicial review—they play a critical role in upholding the Constitution and the rule of law.
Through provisions ensuring independence of judges, security of tenure, and safeguards against executive interference, High Courts maintain impartiality and fairness. As Courts of Record, they preserve legal precedents and reinforce judicial authority.
In India’s single integrated judicial system, High Courts bridge the gap between the Supreme Court and subordinate courts, ensuring that justice is accessible, consistent, and constitutionally sound. They remain vital institutions for protecting democracy, individual rights, and constitutional balance at the state level.
FAQs
Q1. How many High Courts are there in India?
Ans. As of 2025, there are 25 High Courts in India. Calcutta, Bombay, and Madras High Courts (established in 1862) are the oldest.
Q2. What is the retirement age of High Court judges?
Ans. Judges of a High Court retire at the age of 62 years.
Q3. Which Article empowers High Courts to issue writs?
Ans. Article 226 empowers High Courts to issue writs for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights and for any other legal right.
Q4. Can a High Court judge be transferred?
Ans. Yes. The President, in consultation with the Chief Justice of India, can transfer a judge from one High Court to another.
At InclusiveIAS, our editorial team is led by experts who have successfully cleared multiple stages of the UPSC Civil Services Examination, including Mains and Interview. With deep insights into the demands of the exam, we focus on crafting content that is accurate, exam-relevant, and easy to grasp.
Whether it’s Polity, Current Affairs, GS papers, or Optional subjects, our notes are designed to:
Break down complex topics into simple, structured points
Align strictly with the UPSC syllabus and PYQ trends
Save your time by offering crisp yet comprehensive coverage
Help you score more with smart presentation, keywords, and examples
🟢 Every article, note, and test is not just written—but carefully edited to ensure it helps you study faster, revise better, and write answers like a topper.
