Judicial Activism [Meaning, Concept, Cases & Criticism]

Judicial Activism [Meaning, Concept, Cases & Criticism] - Indian Polity Notes

Judicial activism is a concept that originated in the US in 1947. It has been seen in India since the Emergency days. Judiciary and judicial activism are important topics to be understood by the aspirants for IAS Exam. The article will introduce you to judicial activism, its methods, significance and pros and cons. 

Judicial Activism – Know What It Means

The judiciary plays an important role in upholding and promoting the rights of citizens in a country. The active role of the judiciary in upholding the rights of citizens and preserving the constitutional and legal system of the country is known as judicial activism. This entails, sometimes overstepping into the territories of the executive. Candidates should know the judicial overreach is an aggravated version of judicial activism. 

Judicial activism is seen as a success in liberalizing access to justice and giving relief to disadvantaged groups, because of the efforts of justices V R Krishna Ayer and P N Bhagwati.

The Black’s Law Dictionary defines judicial activism as “judicial philosophy which motivates judges to depart from the traditional precedents in favour of progressive and new social policies.”

The concept of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is always talked of when judicial activism is discussed.

Judicial Activism Methods

There are various methods of judicial activism which are followed in India. They are:

1. Judicial review (power of the judiciary to interpret the constitution and to declare any such law or order of the legislature and executive void, if it finds them in conflict with the Constitution)
2. PIL (The person filing the petition must not have any personal interest in the litigation, this petition is accepted by the court only if there is an interest of large public involved; the aggrieved party does not file the petition). 
3. Constitutional interpretation
4. Access of international statute for ensuring constitutional rights
5. Supervisory power of the higher courts on the lower courts

Significance of Judicial Activism

• It is an effective tool for upholding citizens’ rights and implementing constitutional principles when the executive and legislature fails to do so.
• Citizens have the judiciary as the last hope for protecting their rights when all other doors are closed. The Indian judiciary has been considered as the guardian and protector of the Indian Constitution. 
• There are provisions in the constitution itself for the judiciary to adopt a proactive role. Article 13 read with Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution provides the power of judicial review to the higher judiciary to declare any executive, legislative or administrative action void if it is in contravention with the Constitution.
• According to experts, the shift from locus standi to public interest litigation made the judicial process more participatory and democratic.
• Judicial activism counters the opinion that the judiciary is a mere spectator.

Judicial Activism Examples

It all started when the Allahabad High Court rejected the candidature of Indira Gandhi in 1973. 

• In 1979, the Supreme Court of India ruled that undertrials in Bihar had already served time for more period than they would have, had they been convicted.
• Golaknath case: The questions, in this case, were whether the amendment is a law; and whether Fundamental Rights can be amended or not. SC contented that Fundamental Rights are not amenable to the Parliamentary restriction as stated in Article 13 and that to amend the Fundamental rights a new Constituent Assembly would be required. Also stated that Article 368 gives the procedure to amend the Constitution but does not confer on Parliament the power to amend the Constitution.
• Kesavananda Bharati case: This judgement defined the basic structure of the Constitution. The SC held that although no part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights, was beyond the Parliament’s amending power, the “basic structure of the Constitution could not be abrogated even by a constitutional amendment.” This is the basis in Indian law in which the judiciary can strike down any amendment passed by Parliament that is in conflict with the basic structure of the Constitution.
• In the 2G scam, the SC cancelled 122 telecom licenses and spectrum allocated to 8 telecom companies on the grounds that the process of allocation was flawed.
• The Supreme Court rolled out a blanket ban on firecrackers in the Delhi – NCR area with certain exceptions in 2018.
• The SC invoked terror laws against alleged money launderer Hasan Ali Khan.

Pros & Cons Of Judicial Activism

Judicial Activism in simple words means when judges interrupt their own personal feelings into a conviction or sentence, instead of upholding the existing laws. For some reason, every judicial case has a base of activism within it, so it is imperative to weigh the pros and cons to determine the aptness of the course of action being carried out. 

Pros associated with Judicial Activism India

• Judicial Activism sets out a system of balances and controls to the other branches of the government. It accentuates required innovation by way of a solution.
• In cases where the law fails to establish a balance, Judicial Activism allows judges to use their personal judgment.
• It places trust in judges and provides insights into the issues. The oath of bringing justice to the country by the Judges does not change with judicial activism. It only allows judges to do what they see fit within rationalised limits. Thus showing the instilled trust placed in the justice system and its judgments.
• Judicial Activism helps the judiciary to keep a check on the misuse of power by the state government when it interferes and harms the residents. 
• In the issue of majority, It helps address problems hastily where the legislature gets stuck in taking decisions.

Cons Associated with Judicial Activism 

• Firstly, when it surpasses its power to stop and misuse or abuse of power by the government. In a way, it limits the functioning of the government. 
• It clearly violates the limit of power set to be exercised by the constitution when it overrides any existing law. 
• The judicial opinions of the judges once taken for any case becomes the standard for ruling other cases.
• Judicial activism can harm the public at large as the judgment may be influenced by personal or selfish motives. 
• Repeated interventions of courts can diminish the faith of the people in the integrity, quality, and efficiency of the government.

Judicial Activism Criticism

Judicial activism has also faced criticism several times. In the name of judicial activism, the judiciary often mixes personal bias and opinions with the law. Another criticism is that the theory of separation of powers between the three arms of the State goes for a toss with judicial activism. Many times, the judiciary, in the name of activism, interferes in an administrative domain, and ventures into judicial adventurism/overreach. In many cases, no fundamental rights of any group are involved. In this context, judicial restraint is talked about. 

Also read: PIL Under Scrutiny: RSTV – The Big Picture

Judicial Activism VS Judicial Restraint

As mentioned earlier, Judicial Activism is the role played by the judiciary to uphold the legal and constitutional rights of the citizens. Judiciary exercises its own power to implement or strike down the laws and rules that infringes the right of the citizens or is for the good of the society at large, whatever the case may be. 

While, on the other hand, Judicial Restraint is the second face of the coin. It is the polar opposite of the activism which puts obligations on it to follow constitutional laws while implementing its duties. It encourages the judiciary to respect the laws or rules set out in the constitution. 

Judiciary has gained power with judicial activism as the judges can take up issue suo-motu wherever they think that constitutional laws are being violated, however, with judicial restraint, the same judiciary has to abide by the executive who is given the sole power to legislate for the public. 

Way forward in Judicial Activism

Judicial activism is a product fabricated solely by the judiciaries and not backed by the Constitution. When the judiciary surpasses the line of the powers set for it in the name of judicial activism, it could be rightly said that the judiciary then begins to invalidate the concept of separation of powers set out in the Constitution.

If judges can freely decide and make laws of their choices, it would not only go against the principle of separation of powers but will result in chaos and uncertainty in the law as every judge will start writing his own laws according to his fads and quirks.

Judicial exercise has to be respected to maintain a clear balance.

Making laws is the function and duty of the legislature, to fill the gap of laws and to implement them in a proper manner. So that the only work remaining for the judiciary is interpretations. Only a fine equilibrium between these government bodies can sustain the constitutional values

Separation of Powers in the Indian Constitution - Relationship between Executive, Legislature and Judiciary

The three branches of the government are the executive, the legislature and the judiciary. Although the three have distinct functions to perform, their scope sometimes meet. In this article, you can read all about the relationship between the three arms of the government for the UPSC exam polity section.

Separation of Powers

In India, a separation of functions rather than of powers is followed. Unlike in the US, in India, the concept of a separation of powers is not adhered to strictly. However, a system of checks and balances have been put in place in such a manner that the judiciary has the power to strike down any unconstitutional laws passed by the legislature. 

Today, most of the constitutional systems do not have a strict separation of powers between the various organs in the classical sense because it is impractical. In the following sections, we will see the prevailing system in India, what the relationship between each organ is, and the constitutional provisions thereof.

Before proceeding with the relationships, let us examine in brief what the functions of each organ of the government are.

What is the Legislature?

The chief function of the legislature is to enact laws.

• It is the basis for the functioning of the other two organs, the executive and the judiciary.
• It is also sometimes accorded the first place among the three organs because until and unless laws are enacted, there can be no implementation and application of laws.

What is the Executive?

The executive is the organ that implements the laws enacted by the legislature and enforces the will of the state.

• It is the administrative head of the government.
• Ministers including the Prime/Chief Ministers and President/Governors form part of the executive.

What is the Judiciary?

The judiciary is that branch of the government that interprets law, settles disputes and administers justice to all citizens. 

• The judiciary is considered the watchdog of democracy, and also the guardian of the Constitution.
• It comprises of the Supreme Court, the High Courts, District and other subordinate courts.
• For more on Indian Judiciary, click on the linked article.

What is ‘Separation of Powers’?

In the strictest sense, the doctrine of separation of powers is very rigid. 

Background of the concept

• This concept was first seen in the works of Aristotle, in the 4th century BCE, wherein he described the three agencies of the government as General Assembly, Public Officials and Judiciary.
• In the Ancient Roman Republic too, a similar concept was followed.
• In modern times, it was 18th century French philosopher Montesquieu who made the doctrine a highly systematic and scientific one, in his book De L‘ Espirit des Lois (The Spirit of Laws).
• His work is based on an understanding of the English system which was showing a propensity towards greater distinction between the three organs of government.

Meaning of Separation of Powers

Although different authors give different definitions, in general, we can frame three features of this doctrine.

1. Each organ should have different persons in capacity, i.e., a person with a function in one organ should not be a part of another organ.
2. One organ should not interfere in the functioning of the other organs.
3. One organ should not exercise a function of another organ (they should stick to their mandate only).

Significance of the doctrine

Why do we need a separation of powers between the various organs of the State? Whenever there is a concentration of power in one centre/authority, there is bound to be greater chances of maladministration, corruption, nepotism and abuse of power. This principle ensures that autocracy does not creep in to a democratic system. It protects citizens from arbitrary rule. Hence, the importance of the Separation of Powers doctrine can be summed up as follows:

1. Keeps away autocracy
2. Safeguards individual liberty
3. Helps create an efficient administration
4. Judiciary’s independence is maintained
5. Prevents the legislature from enacting arbitrary or unconstitutional laws

Constitutional Status of Separation of Power in India

The doctrine of separation of powers is a part of the basic structure of the Constitution, although not specifically mentioned. The legislature cannot pass a law violating this principle. The functions of the three organs are specifically mentioned in the Constitution.

Let us take a look at some of the articles of the Constitution which suggest separation of powers.

Article 50: This article puts an obligation over the State to separate the judiciary from the executive. But, since this falls under the Directive Principles of State Policy, it is not enforceable.

Article 123: The President, being the executive head of the country, is empowered to exercise legislative powers in certain conditions.

Articles 121 and 211: These provide that the legislatures cannot discuss the conduct of a judge of the Supreme Court or High Court. They can do so only in case of impeachment.

Article 361: The President and Governors enjoy immunity from court proceedings.

There is a system of checks and balances wherein the various organs impose checks on one another by certain provisions.

• The judiciary has the power of judicial review over the actions of the executive and the legislature.
• The judiciary has the power to strike down any law passed by the legislature if it is unconstitutional or arbitrary as per Article 13 (if it violates Fundamental Rights).
• It can also declare unconstitutional executive actions as void.
• The legislature also reviews the functioning of the executive.
• Although the judiciary is independent, the judges are appointed by the executive.
• The legislature can also alter the basis of the judgment while adhering to the constitutional limitation.

Checks and balances ensure that no one organ becomes all-too powerful. The Constitution guarantees that the discretionary power bestowed on any one organ is within the democratic principle.

Judicial Pronouncements Upholding Separation of Powers Doctrine

Kesavananda Bharati Case (1973): In this case, the SC held that the amending power of the Parliament is subject to the basic features of the Constitution. So, any amendment violating the basic features will be declared unconstitutional.

Indira Gandhi Vs Raj Narain Case (1975): In this case, the SC held that the adjudication of a dispute is a judicial function and parliament cannot exercise this function.

Swaran Singh Case (1998): In this case, the SC held the UP Governor’s pardon of a convict unconstitutional.

Constituent Assembly and Separation of Powers

There are chiefly two reasons why the Constituent Assembly did not insert the separation of powers doctrine explicitly in the Constitution.

1. The founding fathers thought that it was too late to be inserting this principle as the Constitution was already drafted.
2. Also, India adopted the British parliamentary form of government. So, they thought it was better to avoid adopting a complete separation of powers doctrine like the American model.

Relationship between Legislature and Judiciary

Even though the functions of the executive and the judiciary are well-defined in the Constitution, the system of checks and balances ensures that each one can impose checks on the other.

• The judiciary can strike down laws that it considers unconstitutional or arbitrary.
• The legislature, on its part, has protested against judicial activism, and tried to frame laws to circumvent certain judgements.
• Judicial activism is said to be against the principle of separation of powers.
• There have been instances where the courts have issued laws and policies through judgements. For example, the Vishakha Guidelines where the SC issued guidelines on sexual harassment.
• In 2010, the SC directed the government to undertake distribution of food grains.
• If the judiciary oversteps its mandate and crosses over into the territory of the legislature or the executive, it is called judicial overreach.

Judicial Supremacy and Parliamentary Sovereignty

To strike a balance between the judiciary and the legislature, the Indian constitution uses the following principles:

• The doctrine of Parliamentary Sovereignty has been adapted from the British Constitution.
• The doctrine of Judicial Supremacy has been adapted from the American Constitution.
• The power of judicial review of the Supreme Court of India is narrower in scope than the Supreme Court of the USA.
• The Constitution of India guarantees ‘established procedure by law’ in Article 21 instead of the ‘due process of law’ provided in the American Constitution.
• The Indian Constitution has opted for an amalgamation of Britain’s principle of parliamentary sovereignty and the judicial supremacy of the USA.
• The Supreme Court, on the one hand, can declare the parliamentary enactments as unconstitutional using the power of judicial review.
• The Parliament, on the other hand, can amend a large chunk of the Constitution using its constituent power.

Relationship between Legislature and Executive

The Constitution states that the executive branch of the State (Council of Ministers) shall be collectively responsible to the Legislature (Lok Sabha). This implies that the Parliament should supervise the work of the government and hold it accountable for its actions.

• In a parliamentary form of government, the executive is not separated from the legislature in that the members of the council of ministers are members of the legislature.
• The executive loses power when it loses the confidence of the legislature. The executive/council of ministers is dismissed if it loses the legislature’s confidence before its tenure is over. So, the legislature controls the executive through a vote of no-confidence.
• The head of government and head of state are different. The head of the government is the Prime Minister while the head of state is the President.
• The parliament makes laws in general broad terms and delegates the powers to the executive to formulate detailed policy and implement them.
• In a presidential form of government, the executive is not accountable to the legislature. One person is the heads of both the State as well as the government. A minister need not be from the legislature.

Relationship between Executive and Judiciary

There are several provisions in the Constitution which makes the judiciary independent. This is because, it is believed that for a democracy to remain efficient and effective, the judiciary must be independent. The judiciary is said to be the guardian of the constitution. If the executive also assumes judicial powers, that sort of a government tends to become oppressive.

However, there are some judicial functions which are performed by the executive as well. They are:

1. The appointments of the judges are made by the executive.
2. The President and the Governors also enjoy the power to pardon, reprieve, etc. These are direct judicial functions.
3. Under the system of administrative adjudication, the executive agencies have the power to hear and decide cases involving particular fields of administrative activity.

The judiciary also performs some executive functions. It can review the actions of the executive and declare them void if found unconstitutional.

Whip in India - Whip Politics

WHIP in India

The Supreme Court said that the dissident legislators of Karnataka cannot be forced to participate in the current assembly session. This stands against the previous orders of the Supreme Court on the anti-defection law.

As per the Tenth Schedule i.e. anti-defection law, a political party has a constitutional right to issue a whip to its legislators.

Supreme Court in Kihoto Holohan vs Zachillhu case, 1992 held that the application of the Tenth Schedule is limited to a vote on “no-confidence” or  “motion of confidence” in the government or where the motion under consideration relates to a matter which was an integral program or policy of the political party.

Paragraph 2(1)(b) provides for a lawmaker’s disqualification “if he votes or abstains from voting in such House contrary to any direction issued by the political party to which he belongs”.

The term ‘whip’ is derived from the conventional British parliamentary procedure of ordering the legislators both ruling and opposition parties to following the party line.

A whip is a directive from a political party that binds the members of that political party in a House to obey the line of the party. In India, the concept is a remnant of the British colonial rule. Most parties appoint a whip whose job it is to ensure discipline among the party members at the floor of the House.

Although the concept of the whip has no official sanction and is not mentioned in the Constitution, it is a convention that is followed in the Indian Parliament. Any party that finds representation in the House can issue a whip, regardless of its strength in that chamber.

However, there are some cases where the whip stands non-applicable. At the time of presidential elections, whip cannot direct a member of legislative assembly i.e. MLA or a member of Parliament i.e MP on whom to vote.

The chief whip is a Member of Parliament (MP) drawn from the party in power and also from the party that sits in opposition. The whip is also an important party office-bearer in the House.

Functions of Whip

The chief whip of the party has a crucial role to play in parliamentary democracy. The whip keeps the party together and also ensures smooth and efficient functioning of the business of the House. The chief functions of the whip are:

• To ensure discipline among party members in the House.
• To ensure the attendance of the party members.
• To make sure the MPs vote according to the party line.
• To ensure that the MPs are informed of the party opinion on the moods of the members.
• To identify the signs of discontent among MPs and inform the same to respective leaders.
• To supply the list of speakers on Bills and other businesses in the House.
• He or she is responsible for maintaining the internal party organization in the Parliament and acts as a binding force in the party.
• He or she also acts as a counselor to the party members in the House and as an advisor to the party leaders.

In India, the Minister for Parliamentary Affairs is the Chief Whip of the Government. He is assisted by assistant whips also. There are also regional whips who are in liaison with the party members of the states.

Types of Whips

One line whip: it is issued to inform the members about a vote. In case a member decides not to follow the party line, one line whip allows the member to withhold.

Two-line whip: it is issued to direct the members to be present in the House at the time of voting but no instructions are given on the voting pattern.

Three-line whip: it is issued to members directing them to vote as per the party line.

What if a whip is violated?

If an MP violates the whip of his party, he or she is evicted from the House under the Anti-Defection Law. A three-line whip can be violated only if 1/3rd of the party members of the House decide to vote against the party line.

Types of Majorities in the Indian Parliament

Types of Majorities in the Indian Parliament - Indian Polity

India follows a parliamentary democracy. In a parliamentary democracy, all major decisions are taken by the Parliament. To pass bill to make them laws, the Parliament needs to pass them with a majority. There are different types of majorities in the Indian Parliament. 

Types of Majorities in Indian Parliament

Although the Constitution of India does not provide an explicit classification for the kinds of majorities needed for passing various kinds of bills, a careful interpretation of the Constitution provides four major types of majorities.

They are as follows:

1. Simple
2. Absolute
3. Effective
4. Special

Simple Majority

• This refers to a majority of more than 50% of the members present and voting in the House.
• Also known as Functional or Working majority.
• This is the most commonly used type of majority.
• When the law does not specify the kind of majority needed, simple majority is used for passing bills or motions.
• Ordinary bills require only a simple majority.
• For example, in the Lok Sabha, out of the total strength of 545, suppose 45 were absent and 100 abstained from voting. This means, only 400 members were present and voting. In this case, the simple majority needed is 201 (50% + 1).
• Instances where a simple majority is needed:
  • To pass money/financial/ordinary bills
  • To pass Adjournment Motion/Non-Confidence Motion/Censure Motion/Confidence Motion
  • To declare financial emergency
  • To declare President’s Rule (state emergency)
  • To remove the Vice President, simple majority is needed in the Lok Sabha
  • To elect the Speaker and Deputy Speaker of the Lok Sabha
  • Constitution Amendment Bill under Article 368 which needs to be ratified by the states, need only a simple majority at the State Legislatures.

Absolute Majority

• This refers to a majority of more than 50% of the House’s total membership.
• This means that in the Lok Sabha, absolute majority is 273. (50% more than 545, the total membership of the Lok Sabha).
• Instances where an absolute majority is needed:
  • Used during the general elections, for government formation at the Centre and the States.

Effective Majority

• This refers to a majority of more than 50% of the effective strength of the House.
• For example, in the Lok Sabha, out of the total strength of 545, suppose 5 are vacant seats. This means, the effective strength of the House is (545 – 5)  = 540. In this case, the effective majority is 270.
• In the Constitution, an effective majority is mentioned as “all the then members”.
• Instances where an effective majority is needed:
  • Removal of the Chairman (Vice President of India), Deputy Chairman in the Rajya Sabha (Article 67(b)).
  • Removal of the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker of the Lok Sabha and the State Legislatures.

Special Majority

Any majority other than simple, absolute and effective are called Special Majorities. There are four types of special majorities. They are as follows:

1. Special Majority according to Article 249
2. Special Majority according to Article 368
3. Special Majority according to Article 368 + 50 percent state ratification by a simple majority
4. Special Majority according to Article 61

Special Majority according to Article 249

This refers to a majority of 2/3rd members present and voting. This is used to pass a Rajya Sabha resolution to empower the Parliament to make laws in the State List.

Special Majority according to Article 368

This refers to a majority of 2/3rd members present and voting supported by over 50% of the total strength of the House. This is chiefly used for most of the Constitution Amendment Bills.

Instances where this type of majority is used:

1. Passing a constitutional amendment bill which does not affect federalism.
2. Removing judges of the Supreme Court or High Court.
3. Removing the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) or the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC).
4. National emergency
5. Resolution by the State Legislature for the abolition or creation of the Legislative Council.

Special Majority according to Article 368 + 50 percent state ratification by a simple majority

This type of majority is needed when a constitutional amendment tries to change the federal structure. 

E.g. The bill that introduced the National Judicial Appointments Commission. It needed the support of at least 15 state legislatures out of the 29 states.

Special Majority according to Article 61

This refers to a majority of 2/3rd of the total strength of the House. This is used in the case of impeachment of the President of India.

High Courts of India - Number of High Courts in India, Jurisdiction & Composition.

The highest judicial court in a state is the High Court. It is termed as the second-highest in the country after Supreme Court of India. Currently, India has 25 High Courts established in different states of the country. As a vital part of Indian Judiciary, High Court becomes an important topic with reference to the candidates preparing for the UPSC 2020 exam. 

In this article, you shall find all the important information regarding the High Court in India, its powers, establishment, the appointment of Judges and Jurisdiction. 

How many High Courts are there in India?

There are 25 High Courts in India.

It was in 1858 when on the recommendation of the Law Commission, the Parliament passed the Indian High Courts Act 1861 which suggested the establishment of High Courts in place of Supreme Court in three Presidencies: Calcutta, Madras and Bombay. The Charter of High Court of Calcutta was ordered in May 1862 and that of Madras and Bombay were order in June 1862. Thereby, making the Calcutta High Court the first High Court of the country.

The reason for the implementation of this act was the need for a separate judiciary body for different states. The British Government, therefore, decided to abolish the then-existing Supreme Court and Sadar Adalat and replaced it with High Court.

Certain rules and eligibility criteria were set for the appointment of a Judge in any High Court and later after independence as per Article 214 of the Indian Constitution, it was declared that every Indian state must have their own High Court.

The British created laws were different from the ones that were stated in the Indian Penal code and the entire legal system of the country changed after the independence of the country.

Which is the  Newest High Court of India?

Andhra Pradesh is the recent state to have the High Court. High Court was established in Andhra Pradesh on 1st January 2019.

Constitution of High Court – Under the British rule, each High Court has a Chief Justice and maximum 15 other puisne judges. But later certain changes were brought about in the composition of the High Court in India:

• Every High Court shall have  a Chief Justice appointed by the President
• Unlike before, there was no fixed number of Judges who could be appointed for each High Court
• Additional Judges can also be appointed for the clearance of cases pending in the court. But their tenure cannot exceed more than two years

One thing that must be noted is that no one above the age of 62 years can be appointed as a High Court Judge. There is no uniformity among the High Courts regarding the number of Judges they will have. A smaller state shall have less number of judges in comparison to a larger state.

High Court Jurisdiction

The jurisdictions of a High Court are as mentioned below:

• Original Jurisdiction – In such kind of cases the applicant can directly go to the High Court and does not require to raise an appeal. It is mostly applicable for cases related to the State Legislative Assembly, marriages, enforcement of fundamental rights and transfer cases from other courts.

• Power of Superintendence – It a special power enjoyed only by High Court and no other subordinate court has this power of superintendence. Under this, the High Court holds the right to order its subordinate offices and courts the way of maintaining records, prescribe rules for holding proceedings in the court and also settle the fees paid to sheriff clerks, officers and legal practitioners.

• Court of Record – It involves recording the judgments, proceedings and acts of high courts for perpetual memory. These records cannot be further questioned in any court. It has the power to punish for contempt of itself.

• Appellate Jurisdiction – This is for cases where people have risen a complaint about a review of the judgement given by the district level or subordinate court of that territory. This power is further divided into two categories:

1. Civil Jurisdiction – this includes orders and judgements of the district court, civil district court and subordinate court 
2. Criminal Jurisdiction – this includes judgements and orders of the sessions court and additional sessions court. 

How is a High Court Judge Appointed?

A High Court Judge is appointed by the President of India. He is solely responsible for the appointment of any judge in a High Court. However, he may consult the Governor of the State, the acting Chief Justice of India and Chief Justice of that particular state’s High Court. 

A High Court judge is also liable to get transferred to other High Courts. This decision is entirely dependent on the Chief Justice of India. Transfer of judges is done with an aim to ensure proper and just trial for every case fought in the court of law.

Eligibility Criteria for High Court Judge

There are certain eligibility criteria that need to be fulfilled to be appointed as a judge in any High court in India. Given below are the set of eligibility criteria mandatory for the appointment of High Court judges:

• Any of the given qualifications must be fulfilled:
  1. The person should have been a Barrister for more than five years 
  2. Has been a civil servant for over 10 years along with serving the Zila court for at least 3 years 
  3. A person who has been a pleader for over 10 years in any High Court.
• No judge should be of more than 62 years of age

The law states that every state must have a separate High Court, however, there still are certain states that do not have an individual High Court. For example – both Punjab and Haryana come under the jurisdiction of Punjab High Court sitting at Chandigarh. Besides, there is a common High Court for seven states – Assam, Nagaland, Manipur, Tripura, Meghalaya, Arunachal Pradesh and Mizoram.

Salary and Perks of High Court Judges

There has been a massive increase in the salary paid to a High Court judge. The table below gives the salary description of a judge in the High Court:

High Court Judge Salary
Designation	Past Salary	After Increment
Chief Justice of the High Court	90,000	2,50,000
Other Judges of the High Court	80,000	2,50,000

Apart from the salary, there are various other perks and allowances provided to a Judge in High Court.