High Courts & subordinate judiciary

The constitutional charter of High Courts

Part VI, Chapter V of the Constitution (Articles 214 to 231) establishes the High Courts as the highest courts in each State. Article 214 mandates a High Court for each State; Article 231 permits a common High Court for two or more States or Union Territories (e.g., the Punjab and Haryana High Court, and the Guwahati High Court serving multiple northeastern States until bifurcations created the Meghalaya, Manipur and Tripura High Courts in 2013). As of 2024 there are 25 High Courts, the newest being the Andhra Pradesh High Court at Amaravati (created 1 January 2019 on the bifurcation from the Telangana High Court).

Composition, appointment and tenure

Under Article 217, a High Court judge is appointed by the President. The appointment is made on the recommendation of the Collegium headed by the Chief Justice of India, in consultation with the senior-most Supreme Court judges and the Chief Justice of the High Court concerned. This Collegium mechanism flows from the Second Judges Case (Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India, 1993) and the Third Judges Case (1998 Presidential Reference). The 99th Constitutional Amendment and the National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2014 sought to replace it, but the Supreme Court struck both down in SCAoRA v. Union of India (16 October 2015) as violating judicial independence, a basic feature.

A High Court judge holds office until age 62 (Article 217), versus 65 for the Supreme Court. Qualifications: Indian citizenship plus either ten years holding a judicial office in India, or ten years as an advocate of a High Court (Article 217(2)). Removal follows the same procedure as Supreme Court judges under Article 218 read with Article 124(4): an address by both Houses supported by a special majority on grounds of proved misbehaviour or incapacity, governed by the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968. No High Court judge has been successfully removed; Justice V. Ramaswami's 1993 motion failed in the Lok Sabha when Congress abstained.

Jurisdiction

The High Court wields original, appellate, supervisory and writ jurisdiction. Its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is materially wider than the Supreme Court's Article 32 power: a High Court may issue writs not only for Fundamental Rights but "for any other purpose," i.e., for ordinary legal rights too. The 42nd Amendment (1976) had curtailed this; the 44th Amendment (1978) restored it. Under Article 227, every High Court exercises superintendence over all courts and tribunals within its territorial jurisdiction. Article 228 lets a High Court withdraw a case from a subordinate court if it involves a substantial question of constitutional interpretation. High Courts are also courts of record under Article 215, with power to punish for contempt.

Crucially, Article 226 jurisdiction extends to a cause of action arising within territory even if the authority sits outside it (15th Amendment, 1963), a frequently tested nuance.

The subordinate judiciary: Articles 233 to 237

Part VI, Chapter VI governs the district and subordinate courts. Article 233 vests the appointment, posting and promotion of district judges in the Governor, acting in consultation with the High Court. A person not already in State service is eligible for direct recruitment as district judge only if he has been an advocate for at least seven years and is recommended by the High Court. Article 234 governs recruitment of persons (other than district judges) to the judicial service, made by the Governor under rules framed after consulting the State Public Service Commission and the High Court.

The linchpin of judicial independence at the district level is Article 235, which vests in the High Court the control over district courts and courts subordinate thereto, including the posting, promotion and grant of leave of persons belonging to the judicial service. The Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. Nripendra Nath Bagchi (1966) held that this control is comprehensive and exclusive, immunising subordinate judges from executive interference. Article 236 defines "district judge" to include additional, joint, assistant and sessions judges, and "judicial service" as a service consisting exclusively of persons intended to fill the post of district judge and other civil judicial posts inferior to it.

All-India Judicial Service

Article 312, as amended by the 42nd Amendment (1976), empowers Parliament to create an All-India Judicial Service (AIJS) for posts not below district judge, on a Rajya Sabha resolution under Article 312(1). The First and Second National Judicial Pay Commissions and successive Law Commission reports (notably the 116th Report, 1986) endorsed an AIJS, but it remains unrealised owing to federal objections from States and several High Courts over language and seniority. This is a perennial Mains GS-2 governance-reform theme.

Why this matters for the exam

For Prelims GS, the high-yield facts are the article numbers (214, 217, 226, 227, 233, 235), the retirement age of 62, the seven-year advocate qualification for direct district-judge recruitment, the number of High Courts, and the wider scope of Article 226 over Article 32. UPSC repeatedly tests the Article 32 versus 226 distinction and the consultation roles of the Governor and High Court under Articles 233-235.

For Mains GS-2 ("Structure, organization and functioning of the Executive and the Judiciary"), expect analytical prompts on the Collegium versus NJAC debate, judicial pendency and vacancies, and the case for an All-India Judicial Service. PYQs include the 2017 question on whether judicial reforms require constitutional amendment, and recurring questions on judicial independence and accountability. Marshal the dated authorities: the Three Judges Cases (1981, 1993, 1998), the NJAC verdict (2015), and Nripendra Nath Bagchi (1966).