State Judiciary in India

The Indian judicial system is based on the harmony of subordinate courts, high courts, and supreme courts. High Courts are critical to the practicality and usefulness of this system. Article 214 marks the beginning of the establishment of a state judiciary, which continues through Article 231. These articles have been included in Part 6 of the Constitution. These articles include everything about the judiciary, including its organisation, structure, judges' prerogatives, powers, state judiciary, and allied functions. The High Courts of India are the country's major civil courts with original jurisdiction. They are found in most states. In the case of tiny states, there are two to three high courts. Their territories have been united, and a single supreme court now has authority over both. This explains why we have 29 states but only 25 high courts.

CLAT 2025: 10 Free Mock Tests | Legal Maxims | Landmark Judgements | PYQs

CUET BA LLB 2025:  Legal Studies ebook | 5 Free Mock Tests

MH CET LAW 2025: 10 Free Mock Tests | Legal Reasoning Practice Questions

Monthly Legal Current Affairs:  August’24 | July’24 | June’24

This Story also Contains

1. A comparison of the High Court and the Supreme Court
2. Challenges faced by the High Court
3. Conclusion

Historical Background of State Judiciary

• Calcutta held the first high court, while Bombay was where the East India Company enacted its first regulations, resulting in the establishment of Mayor Courts, which were eventually expanded to Calcutta and Madras. Initially, Indians were barred from these courts.

• Following the Battle of Plassey, Warren Hastings established provincial courts with civil and criminal authorities throughout Bengal, known as Mofussul Diwani Adalats and Faujdari Adalats, with appeals to Sadar Nizamat Adalats.

• The Regulating Act of 1733 restructured Bengal's legislature and established a Supreme Court in Calcutta for British nationals, which was eventually extended to Madras and Bombay.

• The Act's vagueness resulted in jurisdictional problems, as demonstrated by the Nandakumar case.

• The Indian High Court Act of 1861 settled these problems by combining the ancient Supreme Courts and Sadar Nizamat Adalat into High Courts in Calcutta, Madras, and Bombay, allowing Indian attorneys to practice without British qualifications.

• The judges were seasoned barristers and civil professionals. The Government of India Act 1935, as well as Article 225 of the Indian Constitution, further changed the court by increasing its jurisdiction and allowing it to enforce basic rights through writ petitions.

Important Key Points:

• Calcutta was the home of the first high court.

• In the year 1862, the Bombay and Madras High Court was founded.

• In 2019, there were 25 high courts instead of the previous 24.

• This is because Amaravati is home to the high court.

• The only Union Territory with a distinct high court is Delhi.

Composition of High Court

• The Chief Justice of the High Court is in charge of the court.

• There is one Chief Justice.

• The Indian Constitution does not specify the number of judges; instead, the president makes this decision.

The Qualifications To Be A High Court Judge

A High Court judge ought to be:

• Indian national,

• Having served as an advocate of the High Court for at least ten years consecutively

• Holding a judicial post for at least ten years in any part of India.

Appointment Of High Court Judge

The requirements for the appointment of a High Court Judge are outlined in Article 217. Seeking nomination to the position of High Court Judge, according to this article. The applicant has to meet the following requirements:

• The President formally appoints the justices and Chief Justice of the High Courts.

• The President appoints the Chief Justice after consulting the Governor of the state where the High Court is located and the Chief Justice of India.

• The Chief Justice of India, the governor of that state, and the Chief Justice of the High Court advise the President on appointing other justices to the High Court.

Removal of High Court Judges

• Article 218's goal is to protect the High Courts' independence.

• It allows for the application of Article 124 clauses (4) and (5) to High Court judges as well, keeping his goal in mind.

• The removal of Supreme Court judges is covered by these clauses.

• Thus, under paragraphs 124(4) and 124(5), High Court Judges are guaranteed the same level of security as Supreme Court Judges.

Tenure of High Court judge

• A High Court judge is appointed and serves in that capacity until he becomes sixty-two.

• He can submit his resignation in writing to the president if he so chooses. On the Parliament's advice, the President may also dismiss him.

• Once retired, a judge of the High Court may practise in the Supreme Court or another High Court that he hasn't served in.

Procedure for Removal of Judges

• On the suggestion of the Parliament, the President may dismiss a judge for misconduct or proven incompetence.

• A motion to dismiss the High Court judge may be brought before any chamber of parliament. Every time it is introduced, it needs to be supported by at least 50 members of the Rajya Sabha or 100 members of the Lok Sabha.

• The motion may be rejected by the Speaker or Chairman, or a three-person committee may be formed to look into the issues.

• If the committee deems him guilty, both chambers must vote in favour of the resolution with a special majority. The Judge of HC is then dismissed when the President provides his approval.

Article 219: High Court Judges' oath or affirmation

• In front of the governor of state or a representative chosen by him, the Chief Justice of the High Courts and the judges of the High Court administer an oath.

• They do take their oath in front of the governor, even though the President appoints and removes them.

• It is mentioned in the Third Schedule.

Article 220: Practice Restrictions upon Appointment as a Permanent Judge

• Except for the Supreme Court and the other High Courts, no one who has served as a permanent judge of a High Court after the adoption of this Constitution is permitted to appear or take action before any Indian court or body.

• Justification: The term "High Court" in this article does not refer to a High Court that was established before the implementation of the Constitution (Seventh Amendment) Act, 1956, or that is for a State included in Part B of the First Schedule.

Writ jurisdiction of the High Court

To enforce basic rights or for any other reason, the High Court may issue instructions, orders, or writs within their territorial jurisdiction under Article 226. These writs may take the form of quo warranto, habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, or certiorari.

Article 32, clause (2), states that the authority granted to the Supreme Court by clause cannot be diminished by the authority granted to the High Court. As a result, people have two levels of protection when their fundamental rights are violated. Under Article 32, they may immediately petition the Supreme Court; under Article 226, they may petition the High Court.

Original Jurisdiction

Article 226 outlines the Supreme Court's authority. It grants the High Court the authority to grant writs. In order to enforce the Fundamental Rights, they have the right to issue writs or orders to "any person, authority, or Government which falls within the territories under their jurisdiction."

These writs consist of:

1. Certiorari: This writ is issued to overturn a decision made by a lower court.

2. Prohibition: This writ is being issued as an order to stop a lower court or tribunal from going beyond its authority.

3. Quo Warranto: This writ is intended to investigate the validity of a claim made by an individual or public office. It prevents persons from occupying positions to which they are not legally qualified. This writ only applies to public positions—private offices are not covered by it. The Supreme Court ruled that unless the HC issues a Quo warranto based on uncontested facts, it cannot be granted.

4. Habeas Corpus: It is a writ that mandates that someone who is being held without authorisation or placed under arrest appear in court or before a judge. This is specifically to guarantee the person's release in the event that the legal basis for their imprisonment cannot be shown. The Bombay High Court ruled in a recent case that if the aggrieved party has access to alternative remedies, such as a bail application, a writ of habeas corpus will not be maintainable, even if the remand decision was unlawful. The MP HC also declared that if the person who was wronged has been imprisoned under the 2018 Witness Protection Scheme, a writ of habeas corpus cannot be maintained.

5. Mandamus: A writ that is issued to direct a lower court or to direct someone to carry out a public or legal obligation. The Supreme Court ruled that a statute cannot be passed or amended by writ of mandamus.

Appellate Jurisdiction

It is possible to appeal a district court's ruling in civil proceedings. If there is a major question of law or if the dispute is worth more than Rs 5000, they may also file an appeal straight from a lower court. Appeal against the Session and Additional Session courts is possible in criminal matters. This is the case if the sessional judge has imposed a sentence of seven years or longer in jail or has imposed the death penalty.

They are also able to hear cases involving Centre and State law. For the Supreme Court to hear a case involving constitutional issues, there must be a significant legal question.

A comparison of the High Court and the Supreme Court

Challenges faced by the High Court

• The backlog of cases is one of the High Courts' primary issues. People are submitting a growing number of petitions to the Indian High Court, which has to be examined and evaluated in a righteous society.

• The government is the biggest litigator in India and also contributes to an excessive amount of litigation. Even while some of these instances are significant, most of them involve departments suing one another over disagreements and allowing the matter to be resolved by the courts.

• There are currently between 10 and a million judges, notwithstanding the rise in litigation. Furthermore, there are plenty of seats available.

• Due to disagreements between the administration and judiciary regarding judge nomination, half of the judge seats remain unfilled.

• A significant obstacle in the way of justice is pending cases. The average person loses trust in the legal system when there is a delay in justice. The court system is more ineffective due to its overwhelming caseload.

Conclusion

The balanced perspective of the founding fathers is evident in the establishment of the state judiciary in our system. While the Supreme Court is the guardian of the Constitution and handles constitutional problems principally, the job of the state judiciary is to handle lawsuits that arise in the state over various topics. The primary purpose of the state judiciary and its responsibilities is to support lower courts. To ensure that every Indian citizen receives justice, cases that are unresolvable at the lower court level are frequently elevated to the higher courts.