Contents
Removal
of High Court Judges..
Administrative & supervisory Functions of HC
Public interest litigation (PIL) – Appellate
Jurisdiction
Land mark Judgment with respect to Basic Structure of
the Constitution.
High courts are established under Indian high court act, 1861.
High courts are established at Calcutta, Bombay and Madras.
There are 24 High
Courts at the State level. Article 141 of the
Constitution of India mandates that they are bound by the judgments and orders
of the Supreme Court of
India by precedence. These courts have jurisdiction over a
state, a union territory or a group of states and union territories. The High
Courts are the principal civil courts of original
jurisdiction in the state along with District Courts which are
subordinate to the High courts.
Appointment of Judges: The judges of a high court are appointed by the President. The
chief justice is appointed by the President after consultation with the Chief
Justice of India and the governor of the state concerned. In case of a common high
court for two or more states, the governors of all the states concerned are
consulted by the President.
Qualifications of Judges: A person to be appointed as a judge of a High Court should have
the following qualifications:
·
He should be a citizen of India.
·
He should have held a
judicial office in the territory of India for ten years; or
He should have been an advocate of a high court (or high courts in succession)
for ten years.
The Constitution has not
prescribed a minimum age for appointment as a judge of a high court.
·
He can serve till attains the age of 62 Years.
·
Any dispute regarding the age of judge of HC is decided by President in
consultation with CJ of India.
§ HC judge can resign by writing to President; or
§ By same removal process as in case of SC judges
Salary
of High Court Judges
§ Chief Justice of India → 90,000
§ Others → 80,000
§ From consolidated fund of State
Oath → before Governor (Unlike before President as
in case of Supreme Court)
§
Matters relating to
marriage, divorce, company laws and contempt of court
§
Disputes relating to the
election of members of Parliament and state legislatures.
§
Regarding revenue matter
or an act ordered or done in revenue collection.
§
Enforcement of fundamental
rights of citizens.
§
Cases ordered to be transferred from a
subordinate court involving the interpretation of the Constitution to its own
file.
§ All High Courts entertain appeals in civil &
criminal cases from their subordinate courts.
§ They have, however, no jurisdiction over tribunals
established by the law relating to armed forces of the country
§ Jurisdiction to issue writs under High Court is
larger than the Supreme Court.
§ Supreme Court can issue them only where a
Fundamental Rights has been infringed whereas a High Court can issue them, not
only in such cases but also where an ordinary legal right has been infringed
§ High Court supervise & controls the working of
courts subordinate to them
§ Frame rules & regulations for transactions of
their business
§ For ex. Transfers, Postings, Promotions etc.
§ Not applicable in case of tribunals dealing with
armed forces
§ “HC acts as court of records & has power to
punish its own contempt”
§ Right to entertain PIL cases lies with Supreme
Court and High Court only.
§ A tool of judiciary to enforce legal &
constitutional obligations towards executives & legislatures in interest of
public at large
§ Basic aim of PIL is to render justice & help in
promotion of well-being of public interest (not of individual’s interest → In individual’s case , writ petition for FR)
§ Usually, relief provided by court is in form of
directions or order of state including compensation to affected parties
A PIL may also be introduced in a court of
law by the court itself (suo motu), rather than the aggrieved party
or another third party. It is a result of judicial activism, not mentioned in
constitution or any law enacted by Parliament.
The Jurisdiction of Supreme Court is very wide. Judicial review means the power of Supreme
Court and high court to declare a law as unconstitutional and void if it
violates one or more provisions of the constitution. This power is available to
courts both against executive and legislative actions.
While declaring a law as
unconstitutional and void, the judiciary doesn’t give any alternative
suggestions or solutions. Judicial review is not explicitly mentioned in the
constitution, But is traceable under Art 13,32,226. It is implied in the
concept of supremacy of constitution, division of powers, separation of powers,
rule of law, fundamental rights. It is the limited nature of government that
gives the power of judicial review to courts.
Judicial review is needed for the following reasons:
·
To uphold the principle of
the supremacy of the Constitution.
·
To maintain federal
equilibrium (balance between Centre and states).
·
To protect the fundamental
rights of the citizens.
1. It has helped the courts to prevent
any undue encroachment upon their powers by executive and legislature.
2. Courts have also succeeded in
protecting the fundamental rights enjoyed by the individuals through Judicial
Review.
3. Court has succeeded in protecting
supremacy of constitution, federalism, balance among three organs of state,
rule of law, etc through judicial review.
Supreme Court has declared that it is
part of basic structure of the constitution. In so far as the fundamental
rights are concerned it has been explicitly mentioned in Art 13 of the constitution.
The concept of Public Interest litigation also emanates from the power of judicial
review and writ jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and High Courts.
1. Shankari Prasad case v. Union of India, 1951
2. Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 1965.
3. Golak Nath vs. The State of Punjab, 1967.
4. Kesavananda Bharati v. The State of Kerala,
1973.
5. Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain, 1975.
6. Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, 1980.
7. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, 1997