High Courts play a vital role in the judicial system of India, functioning as the highest courts in each state or union territory. Despite their significance, the complexities surrounding their jurisdiction, powers, and relationship with the Supreme Court often confuse UPSC Civil Services Examination (CSE) aspirants. The varying structure, the process of appointments, and the nuances of their appellate and original jurisdiction can be tricky to grasp.
In this blog post, we will explore the Top 30 Confusing Facts about the High Courts in India, shedding light on the most commonly misunderstood aspects. From their role in interpreting laws to their power to issue writs and their composition, we’ll clarify these important facts to ensure you understand the functions of High Courts thoroughly. This guide will not only clear up confusion but also help you tackle related questions confidently in your UPSC preparation. Let’s dive into the intricacies of the High Courts and clarify all the essential points that every aspirant should know!
Facts About High Courts
- Constitutional Basis: High Courts are established under Part VI, Chapter V of the Constitution (Articles 214-231), but their specific roles and powers are scattered across various provisions, making their functioning complex.
- Number of High Courts: India currently has 25 High Courts, but some states share a High Court, leading to confusion about jurisdiction and administrative control.
- Jurisdiction Over Union Territories: High Courts have jurisdiction over Union Territories (e.g., Delhi), but not all UTs are under the same High Court, as some are attached to neighboring states.
- Original Jurisdiction: High Courts have original jurisdiction in matters like enforcement of fundamental rights, election disputes, and probate cases, but its extent varies between courts.
- Appellate Jurisdiction: High Courts act as appellate courts for civil and criminal cases, but not all cases from subordinate courts are appealable to High Courts, adding complexity to their role.
- Writ Jurisdiction: High Courts can issue writs under Article 226 for the enforcement of fundamental and other legal rights, unlike the Supreme Court, which is limited to fundamental rights (Article 32).
- Superintendence Over Subordinate Courts: Under Article 227, High Courts have the power of superintendence over all subordinate courts, but this does not extend to tribunals created under specific laws.
- Judges’ Appointment: High Court judges are appointed by the President after consultation with the Chief Justice of India, the Governor, and the Chief Justice of the High Court, leading to debates about transparency in the process.
- Retirement Age: High Court judges retire at the age of 62, unlike Supreme Court judges who retire at 65, leading to calls for uniformity in retirement ages.
- Removal of Judges: High Court judges can only be removed through impeachment, as provided under Article 124(4), the same process as for Supreme Court judges, making it a rare occurrence.
- Permanent vs. Additional Judges: High Courts can have permanent judges and additional judges (for temporary workload). Additional judges are appointed for a term of two years, creating administrative challenges.
- Jurisdictional Conflicts: States sharing a High Court (e.g., Punjab and Haryana) sometimes face jurisdictional conflicts, particularly in administrative matters.
- High Court Benches: Some High Courts have permanent or circuit benches to serve remote areas, but the decision to establish benches is often politically influenced.
- Public Interest Litigation (PIL): High Courts entertain PILs under Article 226, but their liberal use has led to a significant increase in workload, affecting efficiency.
- No Uniform Language: High Courts use English as their official language, but some states allow proceedings in the local language, creating procedural inconsistencies.
- Contempt of Court: High Courts can punish for contempt of themselves and subordinate courts, but this power is sometimes criticized for being used arbitrarily.
- Judicial Activism: High Courts often engage in judicial activism, but their interpretations can vary widely, leading to inconsistencies in the application of law across states.
- Dual Control over Subordinate Judiciary: Subordinate judiciary is controlled by both the High Court and the state government, leading to confusion about administrative authority.
- Power to Transfer Cases: High Courts can transfer cases between subordinate courts under their jurisdiction, but the criteria for transfer often vary between states.
- Article 228: High Courts can withdraw cases from subordinate courts and decide substantial questions of law, but the application of this power is rare.
- Appointment of Advocates as Judges: Advocates with ten years of practice can be appointed as High Court judges, but this provision has been criticized for lacking rigorous selection criteria.
- Judicial Pendency: High Courts account for a significant backlog of cases, with over 50 lakh cases pending in 2025, primarily due to vacancies and procedural delays.
- Administrative Role: High Courts have administrative control over the subordinate judiciary (Article 235), but their oversight is often questioned for lack of efficiency.
- Tribunals and High Courts: Some tribunals operate outside the purview of High Courts due to specific legislative provisions, leading to debates about judicial hierarchy.
- Role in Election Disputes: High Courts handle election petitions for state legislatures and the Lok Sabha, but not for the Rajya Sabha or the President, adding to jurisdictional complexity.
- High Court’s Role in Federalism: High Courts interpret federal issues, but their decisions can be overturned by the Supreme Court, leading to debates about their autonomy.
- Live Streaming: While the Supreme Court has begun live streaming of proceedings, only a few High Courts have followed suit, leading to uneven transparency across states.
- Special Courts: High Courts often direct the establishment of special courts for speedy trials, but these orders are sometimes seen as judicial overreach.
- Judicial Transfers: The collegium system decides transfers of High Court judges, but frequent transfers are criticized for disrupting judicial continuity.
- Limited Financial Autonomy: High Courts depend on state governments for financial resources, affecting their independence and ability to improve infrastructure.
These facts shed light on the powers, jurisdiction, and challenges of High Courts in India, highlighting their significance and complexities for UPSC aspirants.