Appointments Of Judge Of High Court

A state's top court is known as the High Court. After the Supreme Court of India, it is the second-highest court in the nation. A high court is established by the Indian constitution for each state, but the Parliament also has the power to create a joint high court for two or more states. A state's territory and a high court's territorial jurisdiction are contiguous. A High Court judge in India is chosen by the President. Any High Court judge's appointment is completely his responsibility. 

 

•    The Seventh Amendment Act of 1956 gave Parliament the authority to create a joint high court for two or more states or two or more states plus a union territory, despite the Indian Constitution's provision for a high court in each state.

 

•    In accordance with Article 214 of the Indian Constitution, each State shall have a High Court.

 

•    A joint High Court for two or more States may be established by Parliament under Article 231 of the Constitution.

 

•    The Chief Justice and any additional justices that the President of India may occasionally appoint make up every High Court (exclusive or common).

 

•    The President is free to decide the HC's strength, which is not mandated under the Constitution.

 

•    As a result, the President periodically assesses a high court's strength based on its workload. 

 

•    A High Court's judges are chosen by the President.

 

•    After consultation with the governor of the relevant state and the Chief Justice of India, the President names the chief justice.

 

•    For the nomination of additional judges, the chief justice of the pertinent high court is also consulted.

 

•    The chief justice of the high court and other members of the judiciary advise the president, which is another word for the government, when appointing justices to a high court.

 

•    This rule ensures that judicial nominations are not influenced by political or practical considerations while simultaneously limiting the executive's overall freedom.

 

•    The president talks with the governors of all the states involved in the case of a common high court for two or more states.

 

•    According to the rule of selecting Chief Justices from states other than their own, the High Court's Chief Justice is chosen.

 

•    A judge of a High Court is appointed, and there are requirements for holding that position, under Article 217 of the Indian Constitution.

 

•    A candidate for high court judges should meet the requirements listed below:

 

•    He must be a citizen of India.

 

•    Must have spent at least ten years working in India's court system.

 

•    He must have served as an advocate in at least two High Courts in quick succession for at least ten years.

 

•    The Constitution does not stipulate a minimum age for nomination as a high court judge, as is evident from the information provided above.

 

•    In addition, unlike the Supreme Court, there is no provision in the Constitution for the appointment of a distinguished jurist to a high court bench.

 

A High Court Judge must take and swear an oath or affirmation before the State Governor before entering office in accordance with Article 219 of the Constitution.

 

A high court judge swears under oath to uphold the sovereignty and integrity of India, the Indian Constitution, and the laws of India. He also promises to carry out his duties as a judge honestly, faithfully, and to the best of his knowledge and judgment, without fear of reward or punishment, affection or malice.

 

The State Consolidated Fund is used to pay the High Court Judges' salaries and benefits.

 

The Constitution doesn't specify a high court judge's term of office.

 

In this regard, it does, however, make the following four provisions:

•    He serves until he turns 62. The president must decide whether there are any questions regarding the age after conferring with the Chief Justice of India, the president's decision is final.

 

•    He has the choice to write the president and offer his resignation.

 

•    The President has the power to oust him from office on the advice of the Parliament.

 

•    When he is appointed to the Supreme Court or transferred to another high court, he vacates his position.

 

•    A President's order is necessary to remove a high court judge from their position.

 

•    Only when the President receives an address from Parliament during the same session can he issue the removal order.

 

•    The address must be approved by a special majority of each House of Parliament, which is defined as a majority of that House's overall membership and a majority of at least two-thirds of its members who are present and voting.

 

•    Removal is based on either incompetence or proven misbehavior.

 

•    As a result, a high court judge can be dismissed using the same procedures and justifications as a justice of the Supreme Court.

 

•    The procedure for removing a high court judge through the impeachment process is governed by the Judges Enquiry Act (1968).

 

•    A high court judge can be removed from office using the same process as a Supreme Court justice.

 

•    It's interesting to note that no high court judge has ever been impeached thus far.

 

•    The President has the authority to move a judge from one high court to another after consulting with the Chief Justice of India.

 

•    He is eligible to receive a compensation allowance in addition to his wages upon transfer, as determined by Parliament.

 

•    The transfer of high court justices may only be utilized in exceptional situations, in the public interest, and not as a form of punishment, the Supreme Court said in 1977.

 

•    The Supreme Court once more decided in 1994 that judicial scrutiny is necessary to prevent arbitrary judge appointment.

 

•    Only the judge who is moved, nevertheless, has the power to reject it.

 

In the following situations, the President may appoint a high court judge to fill in for the chief justice of the high court: 

 

•    The position of chief justice of the Supreme Court is vacant. 

 

•    The chief judge of the Supreme Court is briefly away from the bench or the chief justice of the Supreme Court is unable to perform his duties.

 

•    A retired judge of that high court or any other high court may be asked by the chief justice of the state's high court to serve for a brief period as a judge on that court.

 

•    Only with the previous consent of the President and the candidate for nomination is he able to do so.

 

•    The allowances chosen by the President are due to such a judge.

 

•    The same jurisdiction, authority, and privileges as a judge on that court will likewise apply to him.

 

•    He won't be regarded as a member of that high court, though.

 

•    Additional Judge: According to Article 224(1), the President may appoint duty-qualified individuals as additional Judges for a term of no longer than two years when it appears that the number of Judges should be increased owing to a brief increase in the High Court's business or work backlogs.

 

•    Acting Judge: A permanent judge of the High Court may be designated as the court's acting Chief Justice in cases where a judge other than the Chief Justice is unable to carry out his responsibilities owing to absence or other circumstances.

 

•    An interim judge serves until the permanent judge resumes his responsibilities, according to Article 224 (2).

 

•    Note: The tenure cannot exceed 62 years of age.

 

•    The Collegium System, which arose as a result of Supreme Court decisions rather than an Act of Parliament or a Constitutional provision, is the system for choosing and removing judges. The government only gets involved once the collegium has decided on names.

 

•    The Chief Justice and four of the most senior members make up the Supreme Court Collegium.

 

•    Chief Justice and four of the most senior justices make up the High Court collegium.

 

•    In accordance with this system of judicial selection, the collegium will recommend names of candidates to the Central Government.

 

•    The names of the nominees will also be forwarded by the national government for public discussion.

 

•    Because there is no predetermined time limit, the appointment process takes a long time.

 

•    The government must approve the names if the Collegium sends the same name again.

 

•    There existed an understanding between the government and the Chief Justice of India up to 1973.

 

•    A tradition was formed that the Chief Justice of India would be chosen from among the senior-most Supreme Court justices.

 

•    In 1973, A.N.Ray was named India's Chief Justice. This broke the usual tradition because Justice A.N. Ray replaced three former Supreme Court justices who were superior to him.

 

•    In 1977, a new chief justice was chosen to succeed his seniors.

 

•    The Executive and the Judiciary fought as a result.

 

•    In S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, the court ruled that consultation under Article 124 does not imply concurrence in the First Judges Case (1981).

 

•    This decision states that the Chief Justice of India's view does not bind the President.

 

•    The Supreme Court overturned its previous decision and made the Chief Justice of India's opinion binding in the Second Judges Case (1993), which pitted counsel on record association against the Union of India.

 

•    A collegium of judges, which consists of the Chief Justice of India and two of the most senior justices on the Supreme Court, must also assist the Chief Justice of India in formulating his or her opinion.

 

•    In the Third Judges Case (1998), the court expanded the collegium to a five-member body that included the CJI and the four judges who followed the CJI in seniority.

 

•    The Collegium System has come under heavy fire from both the government and civil society for its lack of accountability and transparency.

 

•    Unconstitutional and autocratic: The term "collegium" was created by the court to protect its autonomy in selecting justices even though it does not appear in the Constitution.

 

•    Undemocratic: Judges are not elected by the people and are not answerable to them or anyone else, hence the selection of judges by a collegium is undemocratic.

 

•    Contrary to accepted conventions: Seniority has long been accepted as the standard for appointment, but supersession disregards and renounces this standard, permitting subjectivity and personal bias in selections.

 

•    In response to these problems, the 99th Constitutional Amendment Act of 2014 (NJAC), which replaced the collegium system for appointing judges, was passed.

 

•    (2015) the Fourth Judges Case. The National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act was ruled to be unconstitutional and void by the Supreme Court, which also acknowledged the collegium's supremacy.

 

•    The Act gave the government considerable discretion to appoint judges, the Supreme Court ruled. The Act, according to the Court, damaged the independence of the judiciary and jeopardized its underlying principles.

 

The High Court is a state's top court for legal matters. After the Supreme Court of India, it is regarded as the second-highest court in the nation. There are currently 25 High Courts located in India. India must therefore make the selection of justices a transparent and democratic process in order to reestablish the higher judiciary's legitimacy. A great starting step in this direction is to reform the collegium system.