High Courts
High Courts
High Courts are the highest courts at the state level, established under Article 214 of the Constitution. They exercise original, appellate, writ, and supervisory jurisdiction. Every state is guaranteed a High Court, though a single HC can serve two or more states or UTs. Articles 214-231 in Part VI, Chapter V deal with High Courts. Currently, India has 25 High Courts. They form the backbone of the Indian judicial system, handling the bulk of constitutional litigation and supervising all subordinate courts within their jurisdiction.
Key Dates
First three High Courts established at Calcutta, Bombay, and Madras under the Indian High Courts Act 1861 — replacing the Supreme Courts and Sadar Diwani Adalats of the three Presidencies
Allahabad High Court established (fourth oldest HC in India)
High Court of Judicature at Patna established — later became a full HC under the Government of India Act 1915
Government of India Act 1935 — created the Federal Court and reformed the HC system; established framework for HC appointments that influenced the Constitution
Constitutional provisions for High Courts (Art 214-231) came into force; existing HCs continued under Art 378
States Reorganisation Act — several HCs reconstituted to match new state boundaries; Kerala HC established
Punjab and Haryana HC established at Chandigarh serving both states and UT of Chandigarh
Sikkim HC established when Sikkim merged with India as 22nd state (36th Amendment)
L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India — SC held that HC judicial review under Art 226/227 is part of the basic structure
Manipur, Meghalaya, and Tripura got separate High Courts (carved from Gauhati HC) — by the North-Eastern Areas (Reorganisation) and Other Related Laws (Amendment) Act, 2012
Andhra Pradesh got a separate High Court at Amaravati (carved from the common HC at Hyderabad after the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014)
S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (First Judges Case) — SC held executive has primacy in HC appointments; CJI's opinion is merely "consultative" — later overruled by Second Judges Case (1993)
Commercial Courts Act proposed (enacted 2015) — established commercial divisions and commercial appellate divisions in HCs to handle high-value commercial disputes expeditiously
SC directed live streaming of HC proceedings following Swapnil Tripathi principle; several HCs including Gujarat, Karnataka, Jharkhand, and Patna began live streaming court proceedings
Constitutional Position and Establishment (Art 214-216)
Article 214 provides that there shall be a High Court for each state. However, Article 231 allows Parliament by law to establish a common HC for two or more states or for a state and a Union Territory. Currently, some HCs serve multiple jurisdictions: Punjab and Haryana HC (Chandigarh) serves both states and the UT of Chandigarh; Gauhati HC serves Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram, and Arunachal Pradesh; Bombay HC has benches at Nagpur, Aurangabad, and Goa (Panaji); Madras HC has a bench at Madurai; Calcutta HC has a circuit bench at the Andaman and Nicobar Islands. There are currently 25 High Courts in India. Article 215 declares every HC to be a court of record, which has two implications: (1) the records of the HC are preserved as evidence and cannot be questioned, and (2) the HC has the power to punish for contempt of itself. Article 216 provides that every HC shall consist of a Chief Justice and such other judges as the President may deem it necessary to appoint. Unlike the SC where Parliament prescribes the number of judges, the President determines the number of HC judges — there is no fixed or uniform strength across HCs. As of 2024, the total sanctioned strength across all 25 HCs is approximately 1,114 judges, with the Allahabad HC having the largest sanctioned strength (160). The smallest is the Sikkim HC with a sanctioned strength of 4.
Qualifications, Appointment, and Tenure (Art 217-218)
Article 217(1) provides qualifications: a person must be (a) a citizen of India, and (b) must have held a judicial office in India for at least 10 years, OR (c) been an advocate of a HC for at least 10 years. Unlike SC judges, there is no "distinguished jurist" category for HC appointments. Appointment: HC judges are appointed by the President after consultation with the CJI, the Governor of the concerned state, and (for judges other than the Chief Justice) the Chief Justice of the concerned HC (Art 217(1)). Under the Collegium system, the CJI and two senior-most SC judges recommend HC appointments after consulting the Chief Justice of the concerned HC and the senior-most HC judge from that state in the SC. HC Chief Justices are appointed generally on the basis of seniority among HC judges, though this is a convention and not a constitutional requirement. Judges serve until the age of 62 years (Art 217(1)). Additional judges can be appointed under Art 224(1) for a period not exceeding 2 years — for temporary increase in work or arrears. Acting judges can be appointed under Art 224(2) when a permanent judge is temporarily absent or unable to perform duties. The Acting Chief Justice is appointed by the President under Art 223 when the office of CJ is vacant or the CJ is temporarily absent or unable to perform duties.
Transfer, Removal, and Conditions of Service
Transfer of HC judges from one HC to another is done by the President after consultation with the CJI under Article 222. In practice, the Collegium recommends transfers. The transferred judge is entitled to a compensatory allowance in addition to salary (Art 222(2)). The transfer provision has been controversial — it has been used both for administrative reasons and, allegedly, as a tool for punishing independent-minded judges. In Union of India v. Sankalchand Himatlal Sheth (1977), the SC held that transfer is not a punishment and does not require the judge's consent. Removal: HC judges can be removed only through the same impeachment process as SC judges — proved misbehaviour or incapacity, with a special majority in each House of Parliament (Art 218 read with Art 124(4)-(5)). No HC judge has ever been removed through impeachment, though Justice Soumitra Sen of Calcutta HC resigned in 2011 before the Rajya Sabha could vote on his removal motion (Lok Sabha had already passed it). Conditions of service: salaries and allowances cannot be varied to a judge's disadvantage after appointment (Art 221). Salaries are charged on the Consolidated Fund of the State (not votable). As of 2024, HC Chief Justices receive Rs 2,50,000/month and other HC judges receive Rs 2,25,000/month. Post-retirement, HC judges can practice as advocates but NOT in the same HC where they served or in any subordinate court within its jurisdiction (Art 220) — this restriction is narrower than for SC judges, who cannot practice at all (Art 124(7)).
Writ Jurisdiction (Art 226)
Article 226 is the most important provision relating to HCs. It empowers HCs to issue writs of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, and quo warranto for enforcement of Fundamental Rights AND "for any other purpose." This makes HC writ jurisdiction broader than SC's Art 32 writ jurisdiction, which is limited to FR enforcement only. Key features: (1) Art 226 covers writs for any right — FRs, legal rights, statutory rights, and even contractual rights in certain circumstances; (2) HC writs can be issued to any person or authority within its territorial jurisdiction, and even to persons/authorities outside its jurisdiction if the cause of action arises within the jurisdiction; (3) Art 226 is NOT a Fundamental Right (unlike Art 32), but the SC in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997) held that judicial review under Art 226 is part of the basic structure; (4) during Emergency, HC writ jurisdiction for suspended FRs can be suspended, but it remains available for non-FR matters; (5) Art 226(2) provides that HC writs can be issued even if the seat of the government or authority is outside the HC's jurisdiction, as long as the cause of action arises within the jurisdiction; (6) the HC can refuse to exercise its writ jurisdiction if an adequate alternative remedy exists (unlike Art 32 where the SC generally does not refuse on this ground, as Art 32 is a guaranteed right). In Tirupati Balaji Developers v. State of Bihar (2004), the SC held that HC writ jurisdiction under Art 226 should normally not be exercised when an effective alternative remedy is available.
Appellate Jurisdiction
HCs exercise appellate jurisdiction in both civil and criminal matters. Civil appeals: appeals from decrees and orders of subordinate courts — district courts, additional district courts, and civil judge courts. The scope of civil appellate jurisdiction varies by state, governed by the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) and state amendments. First appeals and second appeals (on questions of law) lie to the HC. In Kondiba Dagadu Kadam v. Savitribai Sopan Gujar (1999), the SC held that in second appeals, the HC must frame a substantial question of law and confine itself to that question. Criminal appeals: appeals from sessions courts (including cases where the death sentence is awarded — which requires HC confirmation under Section 366 CrPC/BNSS), appeals from magistrate courts, and revision petitions. Under the BNSS (replacing CrPC from 2024), the HC hears appeals from convictions by sessions courts and magistrates. Confirmation of death sentences: when a sessions court sentences a person to death, the sentence is not executed unless confirmed by the HC (Art 134 read with CrPC/BNSS provisions). The HC examines the entire evidence afresh in confirmation cases. The HC also hears criminal revision petitions against orders of subordinate criminal courts. Letters Patent Appeals (LPAs) are intra-court appeals — appeals from orders of a single HC judge to a division bench of the same HC, available under the Letters Patent of the older HCs (Calcutta, Bombay, Madras) and similar provisions in other HCs.
Supervisory Jurisdiction (Art 227) and Superintendence
Article 227 gives every HC superintendence over all courts and tribunals within its territory (except military tribunals). This power includes: (1) calling for returns from subordinate courts, (2) making and issuing general rules for regulating the practice and proceedings of courts, (3) prescribing forms for books, entries, and accounts to be kept by officers of courts, and (4) settling tables of fees. Article 227 is broader than Art 226 in scope — it is supervisory rather than merely remedial. Art 227 jurisdiction can be exercised to correct errors of jurisdiction, gross illegality, or violation of natural justice by subordinate courts and tribunals, even when no writ lies. In Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai (2003), the SC distinguished between Art 226 and Art 227: Art 226 results in a writ (enforceable decree), while Art 227 results in an order of superintendence (administrative/corrective). Art 227 cannot be used as a regular appellate remedy — it is exercised sparingly to prevent miscarriage of justice. In L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997), the SC held that Art 227 superintendence over tribunals is part of the basic structure — tribunals are supplementary to HCs, not substitutes. This means even if a statute bars appeals from a tribunal to the HC, the HC can still exercise supervisory jurisdiction under Art 227. Art 228 empowers the HC to withdraw and decide cases pending in subordinate courts that involve a substantial question of law concerning constitutional interpretation.
Administrative Control Over Subordinate Courts (Art 233-235)
The HC exercises comprehensive administrative control over subordinate courts under Articles 233-235. Article 233: appointment, posting, and promotion of district judges is done by the Governor in consultation with the HC. For direct recruitment from the bar, a person must have at least 7 years of experience as an advocate and be recommended by the HC. Article 234: recruitment of judicial officers other than district judges is made by the Governor in accordance with rules made after consultation with the State Public Service Commission and the HC. Article 235: control over district and subordinate courts (including posting, transfer, promotion, and discipline) is vested in the HC. In State of West Bengal v. Nripendra Nath Bagchi (1966), the SC interpreted "control" under Art 235 broadly to include disciplinary jurisdiction — the power to initiate proceedings and impose penalties on subordinate judicial officers. The HC conducts annual inspections of subordinate courts, evaluates the quality of judgments, maintains service records of judicial officers, and can recommend punitive action. The Chief Justice of the HC, acting through the Administrative Committee, exercises day-to-day administrative control. This control ensures uniform judicial standards across the state. The HC can transfer judicial officers between districts, prescribe rules of practice and procedure for subordinate courts, and direct the speedy disposal of cases.
HC Jurisdiction Over Revenue Matters and Election Petitions
High Courts exercise original jurisdiction in certain specific matters by statute or constitutional provision. Revenue matters: several state statutes vest original jurisdiction in HCs for tax disputes, land revenue matters, and fiscal controversies. Under various tax legislations (Income Tax Act, GST Acts, etc.), appeals from tribunals lie to the HC on substantial questions of law. Election petitions: under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (Section 80A), election petitions challenging the election of members of Parliament or state legislatures are tried by HCs. The HC is the court of first instance for election disputes, and its decisions can be appealed to the SC under Art 136. Company matters: before the NCLT was established, HCs had extensive company law jurisdiction under the Companies Act. Even now, appeals from NCLT orders lie to NCLAT, and further to the SC, but HC writ jurisdiction under Art 226/227 over NCLT is preserved (L. Chandra Kumar principle). Testamentary and matrimonial matters: in some states, HCs exercise original jurisdiction in testamentary matters (probate and letters of administration) and matrimonial disputes (particularly in Presidency towns — Calcutta, Bombay, Madras). Admiralty jurisdiction: Bombay, Calcutta, and Madras HCs exercise admiralty jurisdiction over maritime disputes. The HC also has jurisdiction to hear appeals from orders of various statutory authorities and regulatory bodies.
Independence and Safeguards
The Constitution provides multiple safeguards for HC independence. Security of tenure: HC judges serve until 62 years and can be removed only through impeachment (Art 218 read with Art 124(4)). Service conditions cannot be varied to disadvantage (Art 221). Salaries are charged on the Consolidated Fund of the State (non-votable). Conduct of HC judges cannot be discussed in the state legislature except during impeachment proceedings. The appointment process through the Collegium ensures the executive does not unilaterally control judicial appointments. Art 222 transfer power, while potentially coercive, is balanced by the requirement of CJI consultation. The HC's court of record status (Art 215) and contempt power provide institutional authority. The SC in State of Bihar v. Bal Mukund Sah (2000) emphasized that HC independence is essential for the rule of law and that administrative control over subordinate courts must be exercised without executive interference. The 44th Amendment strengthened HC independence by making Art 226/227 jurisdiction non-excludable (as later confirmed by L. Chandra Kumar as basic structure). However, concerns remain about: executive influence through delayed appointments and transfers, vacancies remaining unfilled for long periods, and the lack of transparency in the Collegium's HC appointment process.
Territorial Jurisdiction and Common High Courts
Each HC has territorial jurisdiction over the state or states and UTs assigned to it. Art 214 mandates an HC for each state, but Art 231 permits a common HC for two or more states. Parliament determines the territorial jurisdiction by law. Current common/multi-jurisdiction HCs: (a) Punjab and Haryana HC at Chandigarh — Punjab, Haryana, and UT of Chandigarh; (b) Gauhati HC — Assam (principal seat), with benches for Nagaland (Kohima), Mizoram (Aizawl), and Arunachal Pradesh (Itanagar); (c) Bombay HC — Maharashtra (principal seat) with permanent benches at Nagpur, Aurangabad, and a bench at Goa (Panaji). Several HCs exercise jurisdiction over UTs: Delhi HC (NCT of Delhi), Bombay HC (Dadra & Nagar Haveli and Daman & Diu), Madras HC (Puducherry), Kerala HC (Lakshadweep), Calcutta HC (Andaman & Nicobar Islands), Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh HC (both UTs). The Parliament can establish a new HC, merge HCs, or alter territorial jurisdiction. Bench system: many HCs operate through multiple benches at different locations to improve access to justice — the principal seat and circuit/permanent benches. The CJ of the HC has the administrative authority to constitute benches and allocate cases.
Pendency, Infrastructure, and Reform
As of 2024, approximately 62 lakh (6.2 million) cases are pending across all 25 HCs, constituting about 12-13% of total judicial pendency. The Allahabad HC has the highest pendency (over 10 lakh cases), followed by Bombay and Madras HCs. Average disposal time varies significantly — from under a year in smaller HCs to over 5 years in larger ones. Vacancies remain a chronic problem: approximately 30-40% of sanctioned HC positions are vacant at any given time. The 245th Law Commission Report recommended increasing the number of HC judges proportionate to filing rates. Infrastructure challenges include inadequate courtrooms, poor digitization, and lack of support staff. The E-Courts Project has extended to HCs, with most HCs now offering e-filing, virtual hearings, and online case tracking through the eCourts Services portal. The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated adoption of virtual hearings, which have become a permanent feature. Other reforms include: establishment of specialized benches (commercial courts, family courts, tax benches), mediation centres attached to HCs, and the National Judicial Data Grid tracking HC performance metrics. The 2021 NJDG data showed that some HCs dispose of more cases annually than they receive, while others continue to add to the backlog.
Landmark Cases on HC Powers
Several landmark cases have defined the scope and limits of HC powers. L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997): the most important case — SC held that HC judicial review under Art 226/227 is part of the basic structure and cannot be excluded by any tribunal or legislative provision. Tirupati Balaji Developers (2004): HC should not normally exercise writ jurisdiction when effective alternative remedy exists (not an absolute bar but a rule of prudence). Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai (2003): distinguished between Art 226 (writ jurisdiction) and Art 227 (supervisory jurisdiction). State of West Bengal v. Nripendra Nath Bagchi (1966): "control" under Art 235 includes disciplinary jurisdiction over subordinate courts. Union of India v. Sankalchand Himatlal Sheth (1977): transfer of HC judges is not punishment and does not require consent. Chandra Kumar (1997) also clarified the relationship between HCs and tribunals: all tribunal decisions are subject to HC scrutiny under Art 226/227, making HCs the first-tier appellate/review authority over tribunals. In S.P. Sampath Kumar v. Union of India (1987), the SC had earlier held that tribunals could substitute HCs, but L. Chandra Kumar overruled this. The HC's power under Art 226 has been described as "one of the greatest safeguards" of the Indian Constitution.
Art 226 vs Art 32 — Detailed Comparison
The distinction between Art 226 (HC writ jurisdiction) and Art 32 (SC writ jurisdiction) is one of the most frequently tested concepts in polity. Scope: Art 32 can be invoked ONLY for enforcement of Fundamental Rights; Art 226 can be invoked for enforcement of FRs AND "for any other purpose" (legal rights, statutory rights, contractual obligations). This makes Art 226 WIDER in scope. Status: Art 32 is itself a Fundamental Right — Dr. Ambedkar called it "the very soul of the Constitution"; Art 226 is NOT a Fundamental Right but has been declared part of the basic structure (L. Chandra Kumar, 1997). Alternative remedy: the SC can generally refuse Art 32 if an adequate alternative remedy exists (Romesh Thappar exception: where FR is violated, Art 32 is available regardless); the HC SHOULD generally refuse Art 226 when an effective alternative remedy is available — but this is a rule of prudence, not a bar (Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, 1998). Territorial jurisdiction: Art 32 is available throughout India (SC has all-India jurisdiction); Art 226 writs run only within the territorial jurisdiction of the HC — but Art 226(2) allows writs against persons/authorities outside the territory if the cause of action arises within the HC's jurisdiction. Emergency: Art 32 can be suspended under Art 359 (except for Art 20 and 21 since 44th Amendment); Art 226 can also be suspended during Emergency for suspended FRs, but remains available for non-FR purposes. Transfer: Art 139A allows the SC to transfer cases from one HC to another or to itself.
HC Collegium Process and Appointment Controversies
HC judicial appointments follow the Collegium system established through the three Judges Cases. For HC judges, the Collegium consists of the CJI and two senior-most SC judges. The process: the Chief Justice of the concerned HC initiates recommendations after consulting HC judges; the recommendation goes to the state government for its views and to the Intelligence Bureau for a background check; the state government forwards the recommendation to the Centre with its comments; the file reaches the SC Collegium; the Collegium deliberates and sends its recommendation to the government. If the government returns the recommendation, and the Collegium reiterates its recommendation, the government is bound to accept it (Second Judges Case). Chronic delays in HC appointments are a major concern: as of 2024, approximately 30-40% of sanctioned HC positions remain vacant. The average time from initiation of recommendation to appointment is often 12-18 months. States have sometimes blocked recommendations by not forwarding files. The Centre has sometimes sat on Collegium recommendations without accepting or rejecting them. The SC has had to intervene — in a 2023 order, it directed the government to act on Collegium recommendations within specified timeframes. The Memorandum of Procedure (MoP) governing the appointment process has been under renegotiation since the NJAC judgment (2015) but remains unfinished. The appointment of HC Chief Justices follows a convention of transferring senior HC judges to head other HCs — often seen as either promotion or displacement depending on context.
Contempt of Court Powers and Recent Controversies
Article 215 declares every HC to be a court of record with the power to punish for contempt. The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 governs the exercise of this power by both HCs and the SC. Civil contempt: wilful disobedience of any judgment, decree, direction, order, or writ of the court (or wilful breach of an undertaking given to the court). Criminal contempt: any publication (written, spoken, or by any other means) that scandalizes or tends to scandalize the court, prejudices or interferes with court proceedings, or obstructs the administration of justice. Section 10 gives every HC the power to punish contempt of subordinate courts within its jurisdiction. Key defences: truth is a valid defence under the 2006 Amendment to the Contempt of Courts Act (Section 13), provided the court is satisfied that the defence is in the public interest and the request to invoke it is bona fide. Fair and accurate reporting of judicial proceedings is not contempt. Good faith criticism of the merits of a decided case (after decision) is not contempt. Recent controversies: several contempt proceedings have been initiated against lawyers, journalists, and politicians for social media posts criticizing judges or judicial decisions. The tension between the right to free speech (Art 19(1)(a)) and the contempt power remains a significant area of debate. Courts have exercised restraint in some cases (dropping contempt against retired judges who criticize the judiciary) while being strict in others.
Complete List of 25 High Courts — Quick Reference
India currently has 25 High Courts, listed here with their principal bench location and territorial jurisdiction: (1) Allahabad HC (Lucknow bench) — Uttar Pradesh; (2) Andhra Pradesh HC (Amaravati) — Andhra Pradesh; (3) Bombay HC (Nagpur, Aurangabad, Goa benches) — Maharashtra, Goa, Dadra & Nagar Haveli and Daman & Diu; (4) Calcutta HC (Port Blair circuit bench) — West Bengal, Andaman & Nicobar Islands; (5) Chhattisgarh HC (Bilaspur) — Chhattisgarh; (6) Delhi HC (New Delhi) — NCT of Delhi; (7) Gauhati HC (Kohima, Aizawl, Itanagar benches) — Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram, Arunachal Pradesh; (8) Gujarat HC (Ahmedabad) — Gujarat; (9) Himachal Pradesh HC (Shimla) — Himachal Pradesh; (10) Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh HC (Srinagar and Jammu) — J&K UT, Ladakh UT; (11) Jharkhand HC (Ranchi) — Jharkhand; (12) Karnataka HC (Dharwad and Kalaburagi benches) — Karnataka; (13) Kerala HC (Ernakulam) — Kerala, Lakshadweep; (14) Madhya Pradesh HC (Indore, Gwalior benches) — Madhya Pradesh; (15) Madras HC (Madurai bench) — Tamil Nadu, Puducherry; (16) Manipur HC (Imphal) — Manipur; (17) Meghalaya HC (Shillong) — Meghalaya; (18) Orissa HC (Cuttack) — Odisha; (19) Patna HC (Patna) — Bihar; (20) Punjab and Haryana HC (Chandigarh) — Punjab, Haryana, Chandigarh UT; (21) Rajasthan HC (Jodhpur, Jaipur bench) — Rajasthan; (22) Sikkim HC (Gangtok) — Sikkim; (23) Telangana HC (Hyderabad) — Telangana; (24) Tripura HC (Agartala) — Tripura; (25) Uttarakhand HC (Nainital) — Uttarakhand. The Allahabad HC has the largest sanctioned strength (160 judges), while the Sikkim HC has the smallest (4 judges). The oldest HCs are Calcutta, Bombay, and Madras (all established 1862).
Relevant Exams
High-yield for all exams. UPSC Prelims frequently tests: Art 226 vs Art 32 comparison (scope, FR status, territorial reach), qualifications and retirement age (62 vs SC 65), number of HCs (25), common HCs (Punjab & Haryana, Gauhati), Art 227 supervisory jurisdiction, L. Chandra Kumar holding (HC review as basic structure), and Art 233-235 (control over subordinate courts). SSC exams focus on the first three HCs (1862), article numbers, retirement age, and basic facts about HC composition. State PSCs emphasize the specific HC's jurisdiction, bench system, and administrative control provisions.