High Court & Subordinate Courts — Contents
01Key Facts & List of All 25 HCs
02Constitutional Articles
03SC vs HC — Quick Comparison
04Appointment of HC Judges
05Qualification, Oath & Salary
06Tenure, Transfer & Removal
07Jurisdiction & Powers of HC
08Constitutional Safeguards
09Subordinate Courts
10Appointment in Subordinate Courts
11Current Affairs & Issues (2024–25)
12Mock Mains Questions
01 — Key Facts at a Glance
25
High Courts in India
62
HC Retirement Age
1122
Sanctioned HC Strength
364
HC Vacancies (Nov 2024)
62L+
Cases Pending in HCs (2025)
15
Judges per Million (India)
Constitutional Position
High Courts are governed by Articles 214–231 in Part VI of the Constitution. Subordinate Courts are under Articles 233–237 in Part VI. India follows an integrated single judicial system (adopted from GoI Act, 1935) — the SC at the Centre, HCs and Subordinate Courts at the State level.
Quick Note on High Courts
- Territorial jurisdiction: co-terminus with territories of the concerned State/UTs
- Two or more States/UTs may have a common High Court (7th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1956)
- Parliament can extend HC jurisdiction to any Union Territory or exclude it
- Several HCs have jurisdiction over more than one state/UT — e.g., Guwahati HC (Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram, Arunachal Pradesh); Punjab & Haryana HC (Punjab, Haryana, Chandigarh UT); Bombay HC (Maharashtra, Goa, D&N Haveli, Daman & Diu); Kerala HC (Kerala + Lakshadweep); Madras HC (Tamil Nadu + Puducherry)
List of All 25 High Courts in India
| # | High Court | Year Est. | Territorial Jurisdiction | Seat / Bench |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Calcutta HC | 1862 | West Bengal, Andaman & Nicobar Islands | Kolkata (Bench: Port Blair) |
| 2 | Bombay HC | 1862 | Maharashtra, Goa, Dadra & Nagar Haveli, Daman & Diu | Mumbai (Bench: Nagpur, Aurangabad, Panaji) |
| 3 | Madras HC | 1862 | Tamil Nadu, Puducherry | Chennai (Bench: Madurai) |
| 4 | Allahabad HC | 1866 | Uttar Pradesh | Prayagraj (Bench: Lucknow) — Largest HC by judge strength |
| 5 | Karnataka HC | 1884 | Karnataka | Bengaluru (Bench: Dharwad, Kalaburagi) |
| 6 | Patna HC | 1916 | Bihar | Patna |
| 7 | J&K & Ladakh HC | 1928 | J&K (UT), Ladakh (UT) | Srinagar & Jammu |
| 8 | Punjab & Haryana HC | 1947 | Punjab, Haryana, Chandigarh (UT) | Chandigarh |
| 9 | Guwahati HC | 1948 | Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram, Arunachal Pradesh | Guwahati (Bench: Kohima, Aizawl, Itanagar) |
| 10 | Orissa HC | 1948 | Odisha | Cuttack |
| 11 | Rajasthan HC | 1949 | Rajasthan | Jodhpur (Bench: Jaipur) |
| 12 | MP HC | 1956 | Madhya Pradesh | Jabalpur (Bench: Indore, Gwalior) |
| 13 | Kerala HC | 1958 | Kerala, Lakshadweep (UT) | Ernakulam (Kochi) |
| 14 | Gujarat HC | 1960 | Gujarat | Ahmedabad (Sola) |
| 15 | Delhi HC | 1966 | Delhi (UT) | New Delhi |
| 16 | HP HC | 1966 | Himachal Pradesh | Shimla |
| 17 | Sikkim HC | 1975 | Sikkim | Gangtok |
| 18 | Chhattisgarh HC | 2000 | Chhattisgarh | Bilaspur |
| 19 | Uttarakhand HC | 2000 | Uttarakhand | Nainital |
| 20 | Jharkhand HC | 2000 | Jharkhand | Ranchi |
| 21 | Tripura HC | 2013 | Tripura | Agartala |
| 22 | Manipur HC | 2013 | Manipur | Imphal |
| 23 | Meghalaya HC | 2013 | Meghalaya | Shillong |
| 24 | AP HC | 2019 | Andhra Pradesh | Amaravati |
| 25 | Telangana HC | 2019 | Telangana | Hyderabad |
Prelims Notes
Oldest HC: Calcutta HC (1862) | Newest HCs: Andhra Pradesh & Telangana (both 2019) | Largest HC: Allahabad HC (by judge strength) | States without their own HC: Goa (under Bombay), Arunachal Pradesh, Mizoram, Nagaland (under Guwahati) | J&K & Ladakh HC was renamed after Art. 370 abrogation (2019)
02 — Important Constitutional Articles
High Courts (Part VI, Articles 214–231)
| Article | Provision |
|---|---|
| Art. 214 | High Courts for States — there shall be a High Court for each State |
| Art. 215 | High Courts to be Courts of Record — with power to punish for contempt |
| Art. 216 | Constitution of High Courts — CJ + such other judges as President deems fit |
| Art. 217 | Appointment and conditions of office of a HC judge |
| Art. 218 | Application of certain provisions relating to SC (Sec. 124(4) & (5)) to HC |
| Art. 219 | Oath or affirmation by HC judges (before Governor) |
| Art. 220 | Restriction on practice after being a permanent judge — cannot plead before any court below the HC |
| Art. 221 | Salaries of HC judges — determined by Parliament; charged on Consolidated Fund of the State |
| Art. 222 | Transfer of a HC judge from one HC to another by the President after consulting CJI |
| Art. 223 | Appointment of Acting Chief Justice of HC |
| Art. 224 | Appointment of Additional and Acting Judges of HC |
| Art. 224A | Attendance of retired judges at HC sittings (with President’s consent) |
| Art. 225 | Jurisdiction of existing HC — preserved from pre-Constitution era |
| Art. 226 | Power of HC to issue writs — for FR enforcement AND for any other purpose (wider than SC’s Art. 32) |
| Art. 227 | Power of superintendence of HC over all subordinate courts and tribunals |
| Art. 228 | Transfer of certain cases to HC involving substantial constitutional questions |
| Art. 229 | Officers and servants; freedom to appoint HC staff (expenses charged on Consolidated Fund of State) |
| Art. 230 | Extension of jurisdiction of HC to Union Territories by Parliament |
| Art. 231 | Establishment of a common HC for two or more States |
Subordinate Courts (Part VI, Articles 233–237)
| Article | Provision |
|---|---|
| Art. 233 | Appointment of District Judges — by Governor in consultation with HC |
| Art. 234 | Recruitment of persons other than District Judges — by Governor after consulting State PSC and HC |
| Art. 235 | Control over subordinate courts — vested in HC (posting, promotion, leave of district judges) |
| Art. 236 | Interpretation — defines “District Judge” to include city civil court judges, additional judges, etc. |
| Art. 237 | Application of provisions to magistrates — certain provisions applicable to magistrates as well |
03 — Supreme Court vs High Court — Quick Comparison
| Parameter | Supreme Court | High Court |
|---|---|---|
| Constitutional Articles | Arts. 124–147 (Part V) | Arts. 214–231 (Part VI) |
| Role / Meaning | Primary court of justice of the country; apex court | Apex judiciary body of a State’s administration |
| Headed by | Chief Justice of India (CJI) | Chief Justice of the State (High Court) |
| Number of Courts | Only one SC in India | 25 HCs. Some HCs have jurisdiction over more than one state/UT — e.g., Guwahati HC (Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram, Arunachal Pradesh), Punjab & Haryana HC (Punjab, Haryana, Chandigarh), Bombay HC (Maharashtra, Goa, D&N Haveli, Daman & Diu) |
| Territorial Jurisdiction | Over all courts and tribunals in the entire country | Over all courts within its territorial jurisdiction (limited by State/UT boundary) |
| Writ Jurisdiction | Art. 32 — only for enforcement of Fundamental Rights | Art. 226 — for FRs AND for any other purpose (ordinary legal rights too) — WIDER than SC |
| Qualifications | Citizen of India; HC judge for 5 yrs OR HC advocate for 10 yrs; OR distinguished jurist in opinion of President | Citizen of India; judicial office for 10 yrs OR HC advocate for 10 yrs. No distinguished jurist category; no minimum age prescribed |
| Appointment | By President after consultation with SC and HC judges (Collegium) | By President in consultation with CJI and Governor of concerned State |
| Number of Judges | 34 (Parliament can change) | CJ + other judges; number fixed by President; currently 1,122 sanctioned |
| Retirement Age | 65 years | 62 years |
| Pleading after Retirement | Cannot plead before any court or authority in India | Cannot plead during tenure; after retirement cannot plead in a court below the HC |
| Removal / Transfer | Only by President after Parliament’s Special Majority address. Cannot be transferred. | Removed by President on Parliament’s recommendation. Can be transferred to another HC by President after consulting CJI. |
| Salaries — Charged on | Salaries + pensions charged on Consolidated Fund of India | Salaries charged on Consolidated Fund of State; pensions drawn from Consolidated Fund of India |
| Distinguished Jurist | Can be appointed | Cannot be appointed — no provision |
| Minimum Age | Not prescribed | Not prescribed |
Most Frequently Asked Distinction (Prelims)
HC’s writ jurisdiction under Art. 226 is WIDER than SC’s Art. 32 — HC can issue writs for both FRs and ordinary legal rights. SC can issue writs only for FR enforcement. In Chandra Kumar case (1997), SC ruled that the writ jurisdiction of HCs (Art. 226) is part of the Basic Structure of the Constitution and cannot be taken away.
04 — Appointment of Judges of High Courts
| Type of Judge | Appointed By | Consultations Required | Situation / Remarks |
|---|---|---|---|
| Chief Justice of HC | President | CJI + Governor of the concerned State. For common HC: governors of all concerned states. | Appointed from outside the State as a convention to ensure impartiality. Transferred from another HC. |
| Other Regular Judges | President | CJI + Governor of the concerned State + Chief Justice of that HC | All three consultations are compulsory. Governed by Collegium recommendations. |
| Acting Chief Justice Art. 223 |
President | — | Appointed from among the other (existing) judges of that HC. Situation: when HC CJ office is vacant, CJ is temporarily absent, or CJ is unable to perform duties for any reason. |
| Additional Judges Art. 224(1) |
President | Same as regular judges | For a temporary period of not more than 2 years. Appointed when there is a temporary increase in business of the HC or arrears of work that need to be cleared. |
| Acting Judges Art. 224(2) |
President | Same as regular judges | Appointed when a regular HC judge (other than the CJ) is unable to perform duties due to absence or any other reason. Acts until the regular judge resumes duties. Note: Acting CJ is under Art. 223, not Art. 224. |
| Retired Judges Art. 224A |
CJ of the HC requests, with previous consent of the President + consent of the person being requested | President’s prior consent is mandatory | A former judge of that HC may be requested. Enjoys all jurisdiction, powers and privileges of an HC judge but is not otherwise deemed a permanent judge. Entitled to allowances determined by the President. |
Collegium & HC Appointments
Since the Second Judges Case (1993) and Third Judges Case (1998), HC judge appointments require the recommendation of the SC Collegium (CJI + 4 senior-most SC judges). The process: the HC Collegium (CJ of HC + 2 senior-most HC judges) makes initial recommendations → forwarded to the SC Collegium → sent to the Union Government → President formally appoints. For Chief Justice of HC: appointed by President after consulting CJI and Governor. For other HC judges: additionally, the CJ of that HC is also consulted. Government can return names once for reconsideration; if Collegium reiterates, President must appoint.
05 — Qualification, Oath & Salary of HC Judges
Qualifications (Art. 217)
| Criterion | Requirement |
|---|---|
| Citizenship | Must be a citizen of India |
| Judicial Office | Must have held a judicial office in the territory of India for at least 10 years (Art. 217(2)(a)) |
| HC Advocate | Must have been an advocate of a High Court (or High Courts in succession) for at least 10 years (Art. 217(2)(b)) |
| Distinguished Jurist | NOT available for HC — unlike SC (Art. 124), the Constitution makes NO provision for appointment of a distinguished jurist as HC judge |
| Minimum Age | NOT PRESCRIBED by the Constitution (same as SC) |
| Retirement Age | 62 years — increased from 60 years by the 15th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1963. (SC judges retire at 65) |
Oath or Affirmation (Art. 219)
Administered by
Before the Governor of the State, or some person appointed by the Governor. Form set out in the Third Schedule of the Constitution. The judge swears/affirms to:
- Bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India
- Uphold the sovereignty and integrity of India
- Duly and faithfully perform duties without fear or favour, affection or ill-will
- Uphold the Constitution and the laws
Salary & Allowances (Art. 221)
- Determined by Parliament (not State Legislature)
- Parliament cannot alter any of these privileges/rights to the judge’s disadvantage after appointment
- Salaries and allowances of HC judges charged on the Consolidated Fund of the State
- Pensions of HC judges are charged on the Consolidated Fund of India (not the State)
Prelims Trap
Salaries of HC judges → Consolidated Fund of State | Pensions of HC judges → Consolidated Fund of India. Contrast with SC judges: both salaries and pensions charged on Consolidated Fund of India.
06 — Tenure, Transfer & Removal of HC Judges
Tenure
- Constitution has NOT fixed the tenure of a HC judge
- Holds office until he attains the age of 62 years
- Can resign by writing to the President
- Can be removed by President on recommendation of Parliament
Transfer of HC Judges (Art. 222)
- President can transfer a HC judge from one HC to another after consulting the CJI (Collegium)
- The Chief Justices of both HCs (one from which the judge is being transferred and the other receiving) must also be consulted
- A transferred judge is entitled to a compensatory allowance in addition to salary
- Transfer is an important tool — sometimes used as a “punishment” (controversial) or for judicial need
Removal of HC Judges
Constitutional Provision
Removal of HC judges follows the same procedure as SC judges (Art. 218 applies Art. 124(4) to HC). President removes on grounds of ‘proved misbehaviour’ or ‘incapacity’ after an address by both Houses of Parliament by Special Majority. Governed by Judges Enquiry Act, 1968.
| Aspect | Supreme Court Judge | High Court Judge |
|---|---|---|
| Removal Grounds | Proved misbehaviour or incapacity | Same — proved misbehaviour or incapacity |
| Initiating Motion | 100 LS / 50 RS members | Same — 100 LS / 50 RS members |
| Inquiry Committee | SC judge + HC CJ + Distinguished jurist | Same composition |
| Special Majority | Majority of total membership + 2/3 present & voting | Same |
| Transfer | Cannot be transferred | Can be transferred to another HC (Art. 222) |
| Post-retirement Practice | Cannot plead before any court or authority in India | Cannot plead in any court below the HC level |
07 — Jurisdiction & Powers of High Courts
Original Jurisdiction
- Hear disputes in the first instance (not by way of appeal)
- Enforcement of Fundamental Rights (Art. 226)
- Cases transferred from subordinate court involving constitutional interpretation
- Matters of will, marriage, divorce, company laws, contempt of court
- Election disputes of members of Parliament and State Legislatures (not President/VP — those go to SC)
- Disputes relating to revenue matter or acts done in revenue collection
Writ Jurisdiction (Art. 226)
- Issues all 5 writs: Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Certiorari, Prohibition, Quo Warranto
- For enforcement of FRs AND any other purpose (ordinary legal rights too)
- Wider than SC’s Art. 32 — SC issues writs only for FRs
- In Chandra Kumar case (1997) — writ jurisdiction of HC declared part of Basic Structure
- Concurrent with SC — citizen may approach HC instead of SC for FR enforcement
- Can issue writs against authorities within OR outside its territorial jurisdiction if the cause of action arises within its territory
Appellate Jurisdiction
- Hears appeals against judgments of subordinate courts in civil and criminal matters
- Appellate jurisdiction in both civil and criminal cases
- Any death sentence awarded by lower court must be confirmed by the HC whether or not there is an appeal
- Parliament can extend HC’s appellate jurisdiction by legislation
Power of Superintendence (Art. 227)
- Superintendence over all courts and tribunals functioning within its territorial jurisdiction
- Excludes military courts and tribunals
- Covers both administrative and judicial superintendence
- HC consulted by Governor on appointment, posting, promotion of district judges (Art. 233)
- Control over posting, promotion, and leave of district judges (Art. 235)
Court of Record (Art. 215)
- HC judgments have evidentiary value — recognised as legal precedents
- Power to punish for contempt of court (simple imprisonment or fine or both)
- Unlike SC, HC has power to review and correct its own judgment even without specific constitutional power
- Note: Phrase “Judicial Review” not mentioned in Constitution
Judicial Review
- HC can examine constitutionality of Central and State legislative enactments and executive orders
- Powers under Arts. 13 and 226
- Can be challenged on three grounds: (a) infringes FRs; (b) outside competence of authority; (c) repugnant to constitutional provisions
- Phrase “Judicial Review” not mentioned in Constitution — implicit power
Key Distinction — Art. 32 (SC) vs Art. 226 (HC)
| Parameter | Art. 32 (SC) | Art. 226 (HC) |
|---|---|---|
| Purpose | Only for FR enforcement | FRs AND any other purpose (ordinary legal rights) |
| Nature | Fundamental Right itself (Part III) | Constitutional provision — not a FR but part of Basic Structure |
| Scope | Narrower | Wider |
| Dr. Ambedkar | Called Art. 32 the “heart and soul” of Constitution | — |
| Can be suspended? | Yes — during National Emergency (Art. 359) | Cannot be suspended even during Emergency |
08 — Constitutional Safeguards for Independence of HC
Note
The constitutional safeguards for independence of HC are broadly the same as those for the SC. Key provisions include:
| Safeguard | Provision |
|---|---|
| Security of Tenure | Cannot be removed except by Presidential order after Special Majority in both Houses on proved misbehaviour/incapacity. |
| Fixed Service Conditions | Salaries, allowances, pension cannot be varied to judge’s disadvantage after appointment (except during Financial Emergency). |
| Charged on Consolidated Fund | Salaries on Consolidated Fund of State; Pensions on Consolidated Fund of India — not subject to vote of State Legislature. |
| Collegium-Based Appointment | Judges appointed after consulting CJI + Collegium + Governor — limiting political influence. |
| Conduct Not Discussable | Conduct of HC judges cannot be discussed in Parliament or State Legislatures except during an impeachment motion. |
| Ban on Post-Retirement Practice | Retired HC judge cannot plead before any court below the HC level (Art. 220). |
| Power to Punish for Contempt | Art. 215 — HC is a Court of Record and can punish for contempt. |
| Freedom to Appoint Staff | Art. 229 — HC has freedom to appoint its officers and servants; expenses charged on Consolidated Fund of State. |
| Jurisdiction Cannot be Curtailed | Art. 226 writ jurisdiction is part of Basic Structure (Chandra Kumar, 1997) — Parliament cannot take it away. |
09 — Subordinate Courts — Structure & Jurisdiction
Constitutional Basis
Arts. 233–237 in Part VI. Note: The architecture of subordinate judiciary varies across states. The structure below is the broadly classified standard framework.
Hierarchy of Subordinate Courts
| Court | Civil / Criminal | Key Features |
|---|---|---|
| District & Sessions Court (In Districts) |
Both | Highest judicial authority in the district. Same judge — known as District Judge for civil cases and Sessions Judge for criminal cases. Has original and appellate jurisdiction in both civil and criminal matters. Sessions Judge can impose any sentence including life imprisonment and capital punishment — but capital punishment requires confirmation by the HC. |
| Civil Subordinate Judge’s Court | Civil only | Subordinate judges have unlimited pecuniary jurisdiction. Act as first courts of appeal from Munsiff’s courts. |
| Provincial Small Cause Court | Civil only | Decides small value civil cases only. Established in districts/towns. |
| Munsiff’s Court | Civil only | Lowest civil court. Jurisdiction determined by High Courts. Handles small civil matters. |
| Court of Sessions / Chief Magistrate’s Court | Criminal | Criminal court at district level. Chief Magistrate handles criminal cases. |
| Panchayat Adalats / Nyaya Panchayats | Both (minor) | Function in civil and criminal areas under regional names (Nyaya Panchayat, Panchayat Adalat, Gram Kutchery). Handle minor disputes at grassroots level. |
| Judicial Magistrates | Criminal | Discharge judicial functions under administrative control of High Courts. Handle criminal cases below Sessions Court level. |
| Executive Magistrates | Executive / Law & Order | Discharge executive functions of maintaining law and order. Under control of the State Government (not HC). Appointed by State Government. |
| Metropolitan Courts (In Metropolitan Areas) |
Both | In metropolitan areas: City Civil and Sessions Courts, Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court, Presidency Small Cause Court. Civil administration in presidency towns (formerly) now handled by metropolitan courts. |
Judicial vs Executive Magistrates — Key Distinction
Judicial Magistrates — discharge judicial functions; under administrative control of High Courts.Executive Magistrates — discharge executive functions (maintaining law and order); under control of State Government.
This separation was an important reform — earlier both were under the executive, compromising judicial independence.
10 — Appointment of Judges in Subordinate Courts
District Judges (Art. 233)
- Appointment, posting, and promotion by Governor in consultation with the HC
- HC’s role is mandatory — Governor cannot appoint without HC consultation
Qualification for District Judge
- Should NOT already be in service of Central or State Government
- Must have been an advocate or pleader for 7 years
- Must be recommended by the HC for appointment
Other Judges (Art. 234)
- Persons other than District Judges appointed to judicial service of State by Governor
- After consultation with State Public Service Commission and the HC
- Both consultations mandatory
Control over Subordinate Courts (Art. 235)
- Control over district courts and courts subordinate thereto, including posting, promotion, and grant of leave to district judges, vested in the High Court
- HC is consulted by Governor in appointment of district judges (Art. 233)
- HC is consulted in appointments to state judicial service other than district judges (Art. 234)
- HC is consulted by Governor in matters of appointment, posting, and promotion of district judges and in the appointments of persons to the judicial service (other than district judges)
- Note: Judicial Magistrates are under administrative control of HC; Executive Magistrates are under State Government
All India Judicial Service (AIJS) — Reform Proposal
Article 312 of the Constitution (as amended by 42nd Amendment) provides for creating an AIJS. The AIJS would centralise recruitment of district and additional district judges across states — similar to how IAS/IPS are recruited centrally. Supported by Law Commission (116th Report, 1986), former CJI D.Y. Chandrachud (2024), and successive governments. Concerns: State autonomy in judiciary, diversity/representation, federalism. Currently not implemented.
11 — Current Affairs & Issues (2024–2025)
India Justice Report 2025 · April 2025
India’s Judiciary — Key Data Points (IJR 2025)
- Over 5 crore cases pending across subordinate and high courts as of January 2025 — a 20% rise from 2020 to 2024
- 61% of HC cases and 46% of district court cases pending for more than 3 years
- 12% of all cases stuck for more than a decade; Bihar recorded 71% of district cases older than 3 years
- Judge vacancies: 33% in High Courts; 21% in subordinate courts. Allahabad HC had over 50% vacancies.
- Only the High Courts of Sikkim, Tripura, and Meghalaya are operating at full judge strength
- India averages 1 HC judge per 18.7 lakh people; Law Commission (1987) recommended 50 judges per million
- Currently only 15 judges per million population (total 21,285 judges in India)
- Women in judiciary: 37.4% overall; only 14% in HCs. Uttarakhand, Tripura, Meghalaya had no women HC judges since 2018.
- Case clearance rate (CCR) in subordinate courts: 96%; HC average CCR: 94%
Judicial Vacancies · November 2024
5,600+ Vacancies Across Indian Judiciary
As per the Ministry of Law, there are over 5,600 vacancies across courts — 2 in SC, 364 in HCs, and 5,245 in district courts. As of November 2024, sanctioned HC strength was 1,122 judges with 364 posts vacant. Causes include retirement cycle, time-consuming Collegium process, delays in government approval of names, low salaries, and heavy workload deterring talented lawyers.
SC Order on Ad-Hoc Judges · February 2025
SC Allows HCs to Appoint Ad-Hoc Judges (up to 10% of sanctioned strength)
The Supreme Court relaxed restrictions and allowed HCs to appoint ad-hoc judges not exceeding 10% of sanctioned strength to address the growing backlog of cases, especially pending criminal appeals. As of January 25, 2025, 62 lakh+ cases were pending before HCs — 18.2 lakh criminal and 40+ lakh civil. Ad-hoc judges are appointed under Article 224A. The CJ of the HC, with the previous consent of the President, may request a former HC judge.
New Criminal Laws · 2024
Three New Criminal Laws Replaced IPC, CrPC & Evidence Act
Parliament passed three new laws in 2024 replacing colonial-era statutes:
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) — replaced Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) — replaced Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973
- Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA) — replaced Indian Evidence Act, 1872
NJAC & Collegium Reform · Ongoing
Memorandum of Procedure (MoP) — Still Pending
After the NJAC was struck down in 2015, the SC directed the government and judiciary to finalize a revised Memorandum of Procedure (MoP) for transparent judicial appointments. As of 2025, this MoP remains not finalized. The delay reflects continued tension between judiciary and executive over appointment transparency. Issues include: criteria for selection, time-bound process, diversity targets, and handling of intelligence bureau inputs.
SC Landmark Judgments 2025
Key Supreme Court Rulings of 2025 (UPSC Relevant)
- Governor’s Assent to Bills (In re, 2025): Constitution Bench (CJI B.R. Gavai) ruled that the Governor has only 3 options under Art. 200 — assent, reserve for President, or return (not a 4th option). Governor’s function under Art. 200 is not justiciable. Relevant for Governor-State relations, federalism.
- Tribunal Reforms: SC struck down certain provisions of the Tribunal Reforms Act that compromised independence of judicial members — reinforcing separation of powers and Arts. 323A, 323B.
- Post-Facto Environmental Clearances: SC rejected post-facto EIA approvals — prior environmental impact assessment mandatory.
- Defection Cases (Telangana): SC held that Speaker is the first authority to decide disqualification; court intervenes only when Speaker delays unreasonably.
- DGP Appointment Reforms: UPSC revised DGP empanelment process on SC directions — states cannot delay sending names without SC approval; no concept of “acting DGP” under police reform framework (Prakash Singh case follow-up).
Judicial Reform Debate · Ongoing
Key Issues in India’s Judiciary for Mains
- Pendency Crisis: 55.8 million+ pending cases as of March 2026; 85% in district courts; Government is the biggest litigant (50% of pending cases)
- Judge-to-Population Ratio: India has ~14 judges per million; Law Commission recommended 50; Europe has 210, USA has 150
- Gender Gap: Only 14% women in HCs; no structural diversity policy for HC appointments
- AIJS Debate: Art. 312 allows creation but States resist — federalism vs efficiency
- Technology: e-Courts Phase III, video-conferencing, AI-assisted case management being implemented
- Fast Track Courts: For heinous crimes (POCSO), SC/ST Atrocities Act cases — created to reduce backlog
- Legal Aid: Despite LADCS rollout in 600+ districts, PLV numbers dropped 38% (2019–2024) — access to justice concern
12 — Mock Mains Questions
Q1. Examine the differences between the writ jurisdiction of the Supreme Court (Art. 32) and the High Courts (Art. 226). Why is the High Court’s writ jurisdiction considered wider?
Approach: Art. 32 — only for FRs, itself a FR, can be suspended during Emergency (Art. 359) → Art. 226 — FRs + ordinary legal rights, NOT a FR but part of Basic Structure (Chandra Kumar, 1997), cannot be suspended even during Emergency → Wider territorial scope of HC (cause of action can arise within jurisdiction) → Dr. Ambedkar’s description of Art. 32 as “heart and soul” → Concurrent jurisdiction with SC → Practical implication: citizen may approach HC first.
Q2. The Indian judiciary is plagued by mounting pendency, judge vacancies, and lack of diversity. Critically examine these challenges and suggest a roadmap for judicial reform.
Approach: Data from IJR 2025: 5 crore+ pending cases, 33% HC vacancies, 15 judges/million vs 50 recommended → Causes: low judge-population ratio, slow Collegium process, government delays in approving names, inadequate infrastructure, frequent adjournments, new laws creating new categories of cases → Specific challenges: gender gap (14% women in HC), caste representation gaps, access to justice (legal aid collapse) → Solutions: AIJS (Art. 312), e-Courts Phase III, fast track courts, plea bargaining, Lok Adalats, revised MoP with timelines, government as model litigant, ADR promotion → Balance with judicial independence.
Q3. Discuss the powers of a High Court in superintending and controlling subordinate courts. How does this differ from the Supreme Court’s control over courts?
Approach: Art. 227 — superintendence (administrative + judicial) over all courts in territorial jurisdiction except military courts → Consultation in district judge appointments (Art. 233), other judicial appointments (Art. 234) → Control over posting, promotion, leave of district judges (Art. 235) → Contrast with SC: SC has countrywide supervisory jurisdiction (integrated system) including over HCs → HC control is state-level, SC is national → Transfer of cases (SC can transfer across HCs, HC can transfer within its territory, Art. 228) → Difference: HC control is more administrative/operational; SC control is supervisory/appellate.
Q4. Compare and contrast the appointment, tenure, and removal of Supreme Court judges with High Court judges. Highlight any three significant differences.
Approach: Appointment: both by President but HC involves Governor additionally → Tenure: SC = 65 yrs, HC = 62 yrs; no fixed tenure in either Constitution → Transfer: SC judges cannot be transferred; HC judges can be transferred to another HC (Art. 222) → Salary: SC — both salary and pension on CFI; HC — salary on Consolidated Fund of State, pension on CFI → Post-retirement: SC — cannot plead anywhere; HC — cannot plead only below HC level → Distinguished jurist: allowed in SC, not in HC → Removal: same procedure (proved misbehaviour/incapacity, Special Majority) → Three significant differences to highlight: retirement age, transferability, post-retirement practice restrictions.
Q5. “The creation of an All India Judicial Service (AIJS) is both constitutionally feasible and administratively necessary, but politically difficult.” Comment.
Approach: Constitutional basis: Art. 312 (42nd Amendment) — AIJS needs Rajya Sabha resolution by 2/3 majority + Parliamentary law → Arguments in favour: fill vacancies rapidly, attract best talent, promote diversity (SC/ST/OBC), reduce examination delays, uniform standards → Arguments against: federalism concern (States lose control), different law traditions across states, unlike civil services judges need independent expertise, risk of centralisation eroding State autonomy → Political difficulty: States (especially non-BJP) unlikely to agree; judiciary’s own reservation about executive role → Reform path: AIJS for district level entry, not higher levels; with adequate reservation and state-specific cadres.
Q6. “Access to justice remains an unfinished agenda in India.” Examine the structural barriers to access to justice with specific reference to subordinate courts and suggest measures for reform.
Approach: Define access to justice (A2J) — not just access to courts but affordable, timely, understandable justice → Structural barriers: (1) Geographic — 600+ districts but unequal court infrastructure; (2) Financial — high legal costs, overburdened legal aid system (PLVs down 38%); (3) Pendency — 85% cases in district courts, 49 million pending; (4) Language barrier — proceedings in official language; (5) Complexity — citizens unable to navigate legal system; (6) Corruption in lower courts → Measures: e-Courts Phase III (digital courts), Tele-Law for remote areas, Gram Nyayalayas (Gram Nyayalayas Act, 2008), Lok Adalats, plea bargaining, village legal aid clinics revival, NALSA strengthening, fast track courts for vulnerable groups → Government as biggest litigant — need for litigation policy reform.
Q7. (UPSC Mains 2018 Style) “The Chandra Kumar judgment has made the writ jurisdiction of High Courts an inviolable part of the Constitution.” Discuss the implications of this ruling for the tribunal system and access to justice.
Approach: Chandra Kumar case (1997) — SC ruled Art. 226 (HC writ jurisdiction) is part of Basic Structure; tribunal decisions must be subject to HC scrutiny → Implication: tribunals (NGT, SAT, TDSAT etc.) can be challenged before HCs under Art. 226/227 — their decisions are NOT final → Tribunal Reforms Act 2021 — SC again struck down provisions compromising judicial independence of tribunals (2025) → Balancing expertise of tribunals with constitutional accountability → NJAC, Basic Structure, separation of powers → Art. 323A and 323B — attempts to exclude HC jurisdiction over service and other tribunals struck down.
