High Court of India: Jurisdiction, Appointments, and Powers

The High Court of India is not a single body but the top court in each state or group of states, sitting directly below the Supreme Court. Twenty-five High Courts operate across the country, and each one hears appeals from lower courts in its territory, issues constitutional writs, supervises every subordinate court and tribunal within its jurisdiction, and decides certain categories of cases directly. Their authority comes from Part VI, Chapter V of the Constitution, which took effect on January 26, 1950.

Constitutional Basis and Reach

Article 214 requires a High Court for every state, making high-level judicial access a constitutional guarantee rather than an administrative choice.¹ Article 231 lets Parliament establish a single common High Court for two or more states or union territories where that makes better practical sense.²

That flexibility shows in the map. The Punjab and Haryana High Court covers two states and the union territory of Chandigarh. The Gauhati High Court covers four northeastern states. The Telangana High Court is the most recent, carved out after Andhra Pradesh was bifurcated. In all, twenty-five High Courts are in operation today.³

The institution itself predates the Republic. The Indian High Courts Act of 1861 authorized the Crown to set up High Courts in the colonial territories, and Calcutta, Madras, and Bombay were established by royal letters patent in 1862.⁴ When the Constitution came into force, these older courts were absorbed into the new national judiciary.

Article 216 sets the internal structure: each High Court has a Chief Justice and as many other judges as the President considers necessary.⁵ There is no fixed cap. Strength is adjusted to caseload and pending arrears, so larger states typically carry many more judges than smaller ones.

What Cases a High Court Hears

A High Court’s docket mixes original, appellate, writ, and supervisory work.

Original Jurisdiction

Certain categories reach a High Court directly, without passing through a lower court first. These include admiralty and maritime matters, probate and succession, matrimonial disputes, contempt of court, and challenges to elections of members of Parliament or a state legislature. Revenue disputes also fall in this basket under Article 225, which preserved the powers each High Court exercised immediately before the Constitution began.⁶

Appellate Jurisdiction

The largest share of the work is appeals from district and sessions courts within the territory. In civil cases, a dissatisfied party can seek review of a lower court’s findings of law or fact. In criminal cases, the High Court hears appeals against convictions and sentences from sessions judges and magistrates. The judges look at whether the correct legal standard was applied, whether procedure was followed, and whether the verdict is supported by the evidence.

Writ Jurisdiction

Article 226 empowers every High Court to issue directions and writs, including habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, and certiorari, against any person or authority in its territory.⁷ This is where most citizens actually meet the High Court. A government agency violating a fundamental right, sitting on a decision it is required to make, or acting outside its legal authority can be pulled up through a writ petition.

The reach here is actually wider than the Supreme Court’s writ power under Article 32. The Supreme Court can issue writs only to enforce fundamental rights. A High Court can issue them for fundamental rights and for “any other purpose,” which brings in grievances under ordinary statutes and administrative orders as well.⁷

Court of Record

Article 215 makes every High Court a court of record.⁸ Its judgments are preserved permanently and bind every subordinate court in the territory. The court also has inherent power to punish contempt of itself.

Public Interest Litigation

Article 226 has been stretched over the decades to accommodate Public Interest Litigation. A public-spirited person can file a petition on behalf of people who lack the resources or awareness to approach the court themselves. PIL has been used to enforce the rights of marginalized communities, push government action on environmental issues, and challenge corruption in public administration.

There are boundaries. Petitions that are really private disputes, landlord-tenant conflicts, service or employment quarrels, and matrimonial cases are generally not accepted as PILs. The petitioner has to show a genuine public interest, not a private grievance in public clothing.

Who Sits on the Bench

Article 217 sets two eligibility paths. A candidate must be an Indian citizen and must satisfy one of the following:

At least ten years holding a judicial office anywhere in India, or
At least ten years of practice as an advocate in one or more High Courts.⁹

These are floors. Most appointees have considerably more experience. Judges retire at sixty-two unless they resign earlier or are removed through the constitutional process.¹⁰ Every judge takes an oath or affirmation before the Governor of the state before entering office, as Article 219 requires.

When a court faces a temporary caseload spike or heavy arrears, Article 224 allows the President to appoint additional judges for up to two years. If a sitting judge other than the Chief Justice cannot perform duties due to absence or other reasons, an acting judge may be appointed until the permanent judge returns.¹¹ Both types retire at sixty-two, and many additional judges are later elevated to permanent positions.

How Judges Are Appointed

Article 217(1) says the President appoints every High Court judge “by warrant under his hand and seal after consultation with the Chief Justice of India, the Governor of the State, and, in the case of appointment of a Judge other than the Chief Justice, the Chief Justice of the High Court.”⁹ On paper this reads as a joint executive-judicial process. In practice, a series of Supreme Court rulings turned it into something else.

The Second Judges Case (1993), decided by a nine-judge bench, held that “consultation” in the appointment provisions must be read as “concurrence,” giving the Chief Justice of India effective primacy. That is the collegium system. The Third Judges Case (1998) refined it further, holding that the Supreme Court collegium consists of the Chief Justice of India and the four senior-most Supreme Court judges. For a High Court appointment, the process starts with the Chief Justice of the concerned High Court, whose recommendations go through a High Court collegium of that Chief Justice and the two senior-most judges, and then to the Supreme Court collegium for final approval.¹²

The government tried to replace this arrangement in 2014 through the National Judicial Appointments Commission, brought in by the 99th Constitutional Amendment. The NJAC would have been a six-member body: the Chief Justice, two senior Supreme Court judges, the Union Law Minister, and two eminent persons. In October 2015, the Supreme Court struck down the amendment by a 4:1 majority, holding that it compromised judicial independence. The collegium continues to operate, and the Supreme Court publishes its resolutions on appointments, transfers, and elevations.¹²

Transfers

Article 222 lets the President transfer a judge from one High Court to another after consultation with the Chief Justice of India, and in practice the collegium drives the decision.¹³ Transfers balance workloads, prevent judges from accumulating excessive local influence, and occasionally address administrative concerns. A transferred judge is entitled to a compensatory allowance in addition to salary, fixed by Parliament, or by the President until Parliament legislates.

Removal From Office

Removing a High Court judge is intentionally hard. That difficulty is what stops judges from being threatened with removal for delivering unpopular decisions. The procedure mirrors the one for Supreme Court judges under Article 124(4): a presidential order after both houses of Parliament pass an address requesting removal, with each house voting by a majority of total membership and a two-thirds majority of members present and voting.¹⁴

The Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 lays out what happens before that vote. A removal motion needs at least 100 signatures in the Lok Sabha or 50 in the Rajya Sabha. If the Speaker or Chairman admits it, a three-member committee is set up: one sitting Supreme Court judge, one High Court Chief Justice, and one distinguished jurist. The committee frames charges, gives the judge a reasonable opportunity to respond, and investigates with the powers of a civil court.¹⁵ Parliament votes on the address only after the committee reports. No High Court judge has been removed through this process to date, though a few have resigned after proceedings were initiated.

Supervisory Power Over Lower Courts

Article 227 gives each High Court superintendence over all courts and tribunals in its territory.¹⁶ Administratively, the High Court can call for case returns, frame procedural rules, and set operating standards. Judicially, it can intervene when a subordinate court or tribunal acts with grave irregularity or steps outside its jurisdiction.

Article 228 adds a specific power: if a subordinate court is hearing a case that turns on a substantial question of constitutional interpretation, the High Court can withdraw the case entirely. It may then decide the whole matter or answer the constitutional question and send the case back with instructions to proceed accordingly.¹⁷

Language of Proceedings

Article 348 requires proceedings in every High Court to be conducted in English unless Parliament legislates otherwise.¹⁸ The Governor of a state, with the President’s prior consent, may authorize the use of Hindi or the state’s official language in High Court proceedings. Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, and Bihar have obtained this authorization for Hindi.¹⁹

Even where a regional language is authorized, any judgment, decree, or order in that language must carry an English translation published under the High Court’s authority. A 1965 Cabinet Committee decision also requires the Chief Justice of India’s consent before any proposal to introduce a non-English language in a High Court moves forward.¹⁹

1
Constitution of India. Article 214 – High Courts for States
2
Constitution of India. Article 231 – Establishment of a Common High Court for Two or More States
3
e-Committee, Supreme Court of India. High Courts
4
legislation.gov.uk. Indian High Courts Act 1861
5
Constitution of India. Article 216 – Constitution of High Courts
6
Constitution of India. Article 225 – Jurisdiction of Existing High Courts
7
Constitution of India. Article 226 – Power of High Courts to Issue Certain Writs
8
Constitution of India. Article 215 – High Courts to Be Courts of Record
9
Constitution of India. Article 217 – Appointment and Conditions of the Office of a Judge of a High Court
10
Parliament of India. The Constitution (Amendment) Bill, 2019
11
Constitution of India. Article 224 – Appointment of Additional and Acting Judges
12
Supreme Court of India. Collegium Resolutions
13
Constitution of India. Article 222 – Transfer of a Judge From One High Court to Another
14
Constitution of India. Article 124 – Establishment and Constitution of Supreme Court
15
India Code. Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968
16
Constitution of India. Article 227 – Power of Superintendence Over All Courts by the High Court
17
Constitution of India. Article 228 – Transfer of Certain Cases to High Court
18
Constitution of India. Article 348 – Language to Be Used in the Supreme Court and in the High Courts
19
Press Information Bureau. Using Regional Languages in Courts