High Courts

High Courts

• At the state level

• There shall be a High Court for
each State (Art. 124)
• Jurisdiction of the HC is
coterminous with the territorial
limits of the state
• Two or more states can have a
common HC through
Parliamentary law (Art. 231)
High Courts

• There are 25 HCs in India

• Madras (1862)
• Bombay (1862)
• Calcutta (1862)
• Allahabad (1866)
• Andhra Pradesh
• Delhi
• Guwahati
• Gujarat
• Himachal Pradesh
High Courts
• Jammu & Kashmir
• Karnataka
• Kerala
• Madhya Pradesh
• Orissa
• Patna
• Punjab & Haryana
• Rajastan
• Sikkim
• Jharkhand
• Chattisgarh
• Uttarakhand
• Meghalaya (2013)
• Manipur (2013)
• Tripura (2013)
• Telangana (2019)
 High Courts
• Bombay, Calcutta, Guwahati,
Kerala, Madras, Punjab &
Haryana HCs have jurisdiction
over more than one state
• Delhi is the only Union Territory
which has got a separate HC
• Jammu and Kashmir HC has
jurisdiction over UTs of Jammu
and Kashmir and Ladakh
• Can have benches
 High Courts

• Composition
• Consists of the Chief Justice and such
other judges as the President from time
to time determine
• No fixed judge strength
• Allahabad HC has the maximum
sanctioned strength (160)
• Sikkim and Meghalaya lowest (3)
High Courts

• Appointment
• The President after consultation
with the CJI, the Governor of the
State concerned and the CJ of the
HC concerned
• Primacy of the opinion of the CJI
High Courts
• A person shall not be qualified for appointment as a Judge of a High
Court unless he is a citizen of India and—
• (a) has for at least ten years held a judicial office in the territory of
India; or
• (b) has for at least ten years been an advocate of a High Court or of
two or more such Courts in succession
• Shall hold office until he attains the age of 62
• Removed in the same manner as a Supreme Court Judge
• Article 217
High Courts
• Expression "Judicial Office" has not been defined under the Constitution,
nevertheless, it has to be given the meaning in the context of the concept
of judiciary as enshrined in the Constitution of India. The constitution seeks
to establish an independent judiciary in the country.
• The Scheme under the Constitution for establishing an independent
judiciary is very clear. Article 236(b) defines 'judicial service' to mean
district Judges and Judges subordinate thereto.
• The judicial service in a State is distinct and separate from the other
services under the executive. The members of the judicial service perform
exclusively judicial functions and are responsible for the administration of
justice in the State.
High Courts
• It is in the above context that we have to interpret the meaning of
expression "judicial office" under Article 217(2)(a) of the Constitution of
India. The High Court Judges are appointed from two source, members of
the Bar and from amongst the persons who have held "judicial office" for
not less than ten years. Even a subordinate judicial officer manning a court
inferior to the District Judge can be appointed as a Judge of a High Court.
The expression "judicial office" in generic sense may include wide variety of
offices which are connected with the administration of justice in one way
or the other. Under the Criminal Procedure Code 1973 powers of judicial
Magistrate can be conferred on any person who holds or has held any
office under the Government. Officers holding various posts under the
executive are often vested with the Magisterial-powers to meet a
particular situation.
High Courts
• Did the framers of the constitution had this type of 'offices' in mind
when they provided a source of appointment to the high office of a
Judge of High Court from amongst the holders of a "judicial office".
The answer has to be in the negative. We are of the view that holder
of "judicial office" under Article 217(2)(a) means the person who
exercises only judicial functions, determines causes inter-parties and
renders decisions in a judicial capacity. He must belong to the judicial
service which as a class is free from executive control and is
disciplined to uphold the dignity, integrity and independence of
judiciary.
• Kumar Padma Prasad v. Union of India (1992)
Removal of Judges
• Shall hold office until he attains the age of 62
• Removed in the same manner as a Supreme Court Judge
• (a) a Judge may, by writing under his hand addressed to the President,
resign his office;
• (b) a Judge may be removed from his office by the President in the manner
provided in clause (4) of article 124 for the removal of a Judge of the
Supreme Court;
• (c) the office of a Judge shall be vacated by his being appointed by the
President to be a Judge of the Supreme Court or by his being transferred by
the President to any other High Court within the territory of India.
• Article 217 (1) Proviso
Removal of Judge
• Article 124 (4) A Judge of the Supreme Court shall not be removed
from his office except by an order of the President passed after an
address by each House of Parliament supported by a majority of the
total membership of that House and by a majority of not less than
two-thirds of the members of that House present and voting has been
presented to the President in the same session for such removal on
the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity.
• (5) Parliament may by law regulate the procedure for the
presentation of an address and for the investigation and proof of the
misbehaviour or incapacity of a Judge under clause (4).
Removal of Judge
• Grounds for removal
• Proved misbehaviour or incapacity
• Investigation and proof
• Parliamentary law
• Address to the President
• Passed by by each House of Parliament supported by a majority of the total
membership of that House and by a majority of not less than two-thirds of
the members of that House present and voting
• Presented to the President in the same session for such removal
Removal of Judge
• The Judges Inquiry Act, 1968
• It regulates the procedure for the investigation and proof of the
misbehaviour or incapacity of a judge of the Supreme Court or of a
High Court and for the presentation of an address by Parliament to
the President and for matters connected therewith.
• Notice for a motion for presenting an address to the President praying
for the removal of a Judge to be signed by
• (a) in case the notice is given in the House of the People, by not less than one
hundred members of that House
• (b) in case the notice is given in the Council of States, by not less than fifty
members of that Council
Removal of Judge
• The Judges Inquiry Act, 1968
• The Speaker or, as the case may be, the Chairman may, after consulting such
persons, if any, as he thinks fit and after considering such materials, if any, as may
be available to him, either admit the motion or refuse to admit the same.
• If admitted, the Speaker or, as the case may be, the Chairman shall keep the
motion pending and constitute, as soon as may be, for the purpose of making an
investigation into the grounds on which the removal of a Judge is prayed for, a
Committee consisting of three members of whom—
• (a) one shall be chosen from among the Chief Justice and other Judges of the
Supreme Court;
• (b) one shall be chosen from among the Chief Justices of the High Courts, and
• (c) one shall be a person who is, in the opinion of, the Speaker or, as the case may
be, the Chairman, a distinguished jurist:
• Provided that where notices of a motion referred to in sub-section (1) are given
on the same day in both Houses of Parliament, no Committee shall be constituted
unless the motion has been admitted in both Houses and where such motion has
been admitted in both Houses, the Committee shall be constituted jointly by the
Speaker and the Chairman
Removal of Judge
• The Judges Inquiry Act, 1968
• The Committee shall frame definite charges against the Judge on the
basis of which the investigation is proposed to be held.
• Opportunity is given to the judge to submit a written statement
• If the ground is incapacity a medical examination by a medical board
• Reasonable opportunity to the judge to cross examine witnesses,
adducing evidence and being heard in his defense
Removal of Judge
• The Judges Inquiry Act, 1968
• If the report of the Committee contains a finding that the Judge is not
guilty of any misbehaviour or does not suffer from any incapacity,
then no further steps shall be taken in either House of Parliament in
relation to the report and the motion pending in the House or the
Houses of Parliament shall not be proceeded with.
• If the report of the Committee contains a finding that the Judge is
guilty of any misbehaviour or suffers from any incapacity, then, the
motion shall, together with the report of the Committee, be taken up
for consideration by the House or the Houses of Parliament in which
it is pending.
Removal of Judge
• The Judges Inquiry Rules, 1969
• The motion is put to vote in the House
• If passed by the House with the prescribed majority, then transmitted
to the other House
• If passed by both the Houses with the prescribed majority, then the
address is sent to the President
• President passes an order under Article 124 (4)
Removal of Judge
• A judge of the Supreme Court or a High Court is a public servant
under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (1988)
• President is the appropriate authority to grant sanction under the Act
for prosecution.
• Safeguards have been prescribed for preserving the independence of
judiciary
• Only with the permission of the Chief Justice of India criminal cases
can be registered against Supreme Court and High Court judges
• K Veeraswami v Union of India (1991)
Removal of Judge
• K Veeraswami v Union of India (1991)
• It is true that the relationship of master and servant as is ordinarily
understood in common law does not exist between the Judges of higher
judiciary and the Government. Where there is relationship of master and
servant the master would be in commanding position. He has power over
the employee not only to direct what work the servant is to do, but also
the manner in which the work is to be done. The servant undertakes to
serve the master and obey the reasonable orders within the scope of his
duty. It is implicit in such relationship that the servant may disobey the
master's order only at his peril. But there is no such relationship between
the Judges and their appointing authority that is, the Government. The
Judges are not bound nor do they undertake to obey any order of the
Government within the scope of their duties. Indeed, they are not Judges if
they allow themselves to be guided by the Government in the performance
of their duties.
Removal of Judge
• K Veeraswami v Union of India (1991)
• We may make it clear that if a Judge is convicted for the offence of criminal
misconduct or any other offence involving moral turpitude, it is but proper
for him to keep himself away from the Court. He must voluntarily withdraw
from judicial work and await the outcome of the criminal prosecution. If he
is sentenced in a criminal case he should forthwith tender his resignation
unless he obtains stay of his conviction and sentence. He shall not insist on
his right to sit on the Bench till he is cleared from the charge by a Court of
competent jurisdiction. The judiciary has no power of the purse or the
sword. It survives only by public confidence and it is important to the
stability of the society that the confidence of the public is not shaken. The
Judge whose character is clouded and whose standards of morality and
rectitude are in doubt may not have the judicial independence and may not
command confidence of the public. He must voluntarily withdraw from the
judicial work and administration.
Removal of Judge
• K Veeraswami v Union of India (1991)
• Any complaint against a Judge and its investigation by the CBI, if given
publicity will have a far reaching impact on the Judge and the litigant
public. The need therefore, is a judicious use of taking action under
the Act. Care should be taken that honest and fearless judges are not
harassed. They should be protected. In the instant case the then Chief
Justice of India was requested to give his opinion whether the
appellant could be proceeded under the Act. It was only after the
Chief Justice expressed his views that the appellant could be
proceeded under the provisions of the Act, the case was registered
against him.
Removal of Judge
• K Veeraswami v Union of India (1991)
• Hence it is necessary that the Chief Justice of India is not kept out of the picture
of any criminal case contemplated against a Judge. He would be in a better
position to give his opinion in the case and consultation with the Chief Justice of
India would be of immense assistance to the Government in coming to the right
conclusion. We therefore, direct that no criminal case shall be registered
under Section 154, Cr. P. C. against Judge of the High Court, Chief Justice of High
Court or Judge of the Supreme Court unless the Chief Justice of India is consulted
in the matter. Due regard must be given by the Government to the opinion
expressed by the Chief Justice. If the Chief Justice is of opinion that it is not a fit
case for proceeding under the Act, the case shall not be registered. If the Chief
Justice of India himself is the person against whom the allegations of criminal
misconduct are received the Government shall consult any other Judge or Judges
of the Supreme Court.
Removal of Judge
• C. Ravichandran Iyer v. Justice A. M. Bhattacharjee (1995)
• Independence of Judiciary is a wider concept and not limited to
independence from executive pressure or influence
• Impeachment process contained in Article 124 (4) is the only mechanism for
removal of a judge
• Willful abuse of judicial office, willful misconduct in the office, corruption,
lack of integrity, or any other offence involving moral turpitude would be
misbehaviour.
• In case of bad conduct, it can be rectified by an inhouse procedure
Removal of Judge
• The independence of judiciary is not limited only to the
independence from the executive pressure or influence; it is a wider
concept which takes within its sweep independence from any other
pressure and prejudices. It has many dimensions, viz., fearlessness of
other power centers, economic or political, and freedom from
prejudices acquired and nourished by the class to which the judges
belong.
• The heart of judicial independence is judicial individualism. The
judiciary is not a disembodied abstraction. It is composed of
individual men and women who work primarily on their own
Removal of Judge
• The founding fathers of the Constitution advisedly adopted cumbersome
process of impeachment as a mode to remove a Judge from office for only
proved misbehaviour or incapacity which implies that impeachment
process is not available for minor abrasive behaviour of a Judge. It
reinforces that independence to the Judge is of paramount importance to
sustain, strengthen and elongate rule of law. Parliament sparingly resorts
to the mechanism of impeachment designed under the Constitution by
political process as the extreme measure only upon a finding of proved
misbehaviour or incapacity recorded by a committee constituted
under Section 3 of the Act by way of address to the President in the
manner laid down in Article 124 (4) and (5) of the Constitution, the Act and
the Rules made thereunder.
Removal of Judge
• Articles 124 (4) and 121 would thus put the nail squarely on the
projections, prosecutions or attempts by any other forum or group of
individuals or Associations, statutory or otherwise, either to
investigate or enquire into or discuss the conduct of a Judge or the
performance of his duties and on/off court behaviour except as per
the procedure provided under Articles 124 (4) and (5) of the
Constitution, and Act and the Rules.
Removal of Judge
• Thereby, equally no other agency or authority like the C.B.I., Ministry
of Finance, the Reserve Bank of India [respondents Nos. 8 to 10] as
sought for by the petitioner, would investigate into the conduct or
acts or actions of a Judge. No mandamus or direction would be issued
to the Speaker of Lok Sabha or Chairman of Rajya Sabha to initiate
action for impeachment. It is true, as contended by the petitioner,
that in K. Veeraswami v. Union of India majority of the Constitution
Bench upheld the power of the police to investigate into the
disproportionate assets alleged to be possessed by a Judge, an
offence under Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947
subject to prior sanction of the Chief Justice of India to maintain
independence of the judiciary.
Removal of Judge
• Every act or conduct or even error of judgment or negligent acts by
higher judiciary per se does not amount to misbehaviour. Willful
abuse of judicial office, willful misconduct in the office, corruption,
lack of integrity, or any other offence involving moral turpitude would
be misbehaviour. Misconduct implies actuation of some degree of
mens rea by the doer. Judicial finding of guilt of grave crime is
misconduct. Persistent failure to perform the judicial duties of the
Judge or Willful abuse of the office dolus malus would be
misbehaviour. Misbehaviour would extend to conduct of the Judge in
or beyond the execution of judicial office. Even administrative actions
or omissions too need accompaniment of mens rea.
Removal of Judge
• It would thus be seen that yawning gap between proved misbehaviour and
bad conduct in consistent with the high office on the part of a non
cooperating Judge/Chief Justice of a High Court could be disciplined by self-
regulation through inhouse procedure. This inhouse procedure would fill in
the constitutional gap and would yield salutary effect…
• Where the complaint relates to the Judge of the High Court, the Chief
Justice of that High Court, after verification, and if necessary, after
confidential enquiry from his independent source, should satisfy himself
about the truth of the imputation made by the Bar Association through its
office bearers against the Judge and consult the Chief Justice of India,
where deemed necessary, by placing all the information with him.
Removal of Judge
• When the Chief Justice of India is seized of the matter, to avoid
embarrassment to him and to allow fairness in the procedure to be
adopted in furtherance thereof, the Bar should suspend all further actions
to enable the Chief Justice of India to appropriately deal with the matter.
This is necessary because any action he may take must not only be just but
must also appear to be just to all concerned, i.e., it must not even appear
to have been taken under pressure from any quarter.
• The Chief Justice of India, on receipt of the information from the Chief
Justice of the High Court, after being satisfied about the correctness and
truth touching the conduct of the Judge, may tender such advice either
directly or may initiate such action, as is deemed necessary or warranted
under given facts and circumstances.
Removal of Judge
• If circumstances permit, it may be salutary to take the Judge into
confidence before initiating action.
• On the decision being taken by the Chief Justice of India, the matter should
rest at that.
• This procedure would not only facilitate nibbing in the bud the conduct of a
Judge leading to loss of public confidence in the courts and sustain public
faith in the efficacy of the rule of law and respect for the judiciary, but
would also avoid needless embarrassment of contempt proceedings
against the office bearers of the Bar Association and group libel against all
concerned.
• The independence of judiciary and the stream of public justice would
remain pure and unsullied. The Bar Association could remain a useful arm
of the judiciary and in the case of sagging reputation of the particular
Judge, the Bar Association could take up the matter with the Chief Justice
of the High Court and await his response for the action taken thereunder
for a reasonable period.
Removal of Judge
• The procedure up to the voting is a statutory process and is subject to
judicial review
• Use of the expression 'same session' in clause (4) without any
reference to session in clause (5) also indicates that session of House
has no significance for clause (5) i.e., 'investigation and proof' which is
to be entirely governed by the enacted law and not the parliamentary
practice which may be altered by each Lok Sabha.
• The motion does not lapse on the dissolution of the House
• Sub Committee on Judicial Accountability v. Union of India (1991)
Removal of Judge
• V. Ramaswami (1993)
• P. D. Dinakaran (2011)
• Soumitra Sen (2011)
• Dipak Misra (2018)
Additional and Acting Judges
• Article 224: If by reason of any temporary increase in the business of a
High Court or by reason of arrears of work therein, it appears to the
President that the number of the Judges of that Court should be for the
time being increased, the President may, [in consultation with the National
Judicial Appointments Commission, appoint] duly qualified persons to be
additional Judges of the Court for such period not exceeding two years as
he may specify.
• When any Judge of a High Court other than the Chief Justice is by reason of
absence or for any other reason unable to perform the duties of his office
or is appointed to act temporarily as Chief Justice, [the President may, in
consultation with the National Judicial Appointments Commission,
appoint] a duly qualified person to act as a Judge of that Court until the
permanent Judge has resumed his duties.
Ad Hoc judges – Supreme Court
• 127. Appointment of ad hoc Judges.—(1) If at any time there should not
be a quorum of the Judges of the Supreme Court available to hold or
continue any session of the Court, [the National Judicial Appointments
Commission on a reference made to it by the Chief Justice of India, may
with the previous consent of the President] and after consultation with the
Chief Justice of the High Court concerned, request in writing the
attendance at the sittings of the Court, as an ad hoc Judge, for such period
as may be necessary, of a Judge of a High Court duly qualified for
appointment as a Judge of the Supreme Court to be designated by the
Chief Justice of India.
• (2) It shall be the duty of the Judge who has been so designated, in priority
to other duties of his office, to attend the sittings of the Supreme Court at
the time and for the period for which his attendance is required, and while
so attending he shall have all the jurisdiction, powers and privileges, and
shall discharge the duties, of a Judge of the Supreme Court.
Retired Judges – Supreme Court
• Article 128. Attendance of retired Judges at sittings of the Supreme
Court.—Notwithstanding anything in this Chapter, [the National
Judicial Appointments Commission] may at any time, with the
previous consent of the President, request any person who has held
the office of a Judge of the Supreme Court or of the Federal Court [or
who has held the office of a Judge of a High Court and is duly
qualified for appointment as a Judge of the Supreme Court] to sit and
act as a Judge of the Supreme Court, and every such person so
requested shall, while so sitting and acting, be entitled to such
allowances as the President may by order determine and have all the
jurisdiction, powers and privileges of, but shall not otherwise be
deemed to be, a Judge of that Court:
• Provided that nothing in this article shall be deemed to require any
such person as aforesaid to sit and act as a Judge of that Court unless
he consents so to do.
Retired Judges
• 224A. Appointment of retired Judges at sittings of High Courts.—
Notwithstanding anything in this Chapter, [the National Judicial
Appointments Commission on a reference made to it by the Chief Justice of
a High Court for any State, may with the previous consent of the
President], request any person who has held the office of a Judge of that
Court or of any other High Court to sit and act as a Judge of the High Court
for that State, and every such person so requested shall, while so sitting
and acting, be entitled to such allowances as the President may by order
determine and have all the jurisdiction, powers and privileges of, but shall
not otherwise be deemed to be, a Judge of that High Court:
• Provided that nothing in this article shall be deemed to require any such
person as aforesaid to sit and act as a Judge of that High Court unless he
consents so to do.
Acting Chief Justice
• Article 223. Appointment of acting Chief Justice.—When the office
of Chief Justice of a High Court is vacant or when any such Chief
Justice is, by reason of absence or otherwise, unable to perform the
duties of his office, the duties of the office shall be performed by such
one of the other Judges of the Court as the President may appoint for
the purpose.
• Article 126. Appointment of acting Chief Justice.—When the office
of Chief Justice of India is vacant or when the Chief Justice is, by
reason of absence or otherwise, unable to perform the duties of his
office, the duties of the office shall be performed by such one of the
other Judges of the Court as the President may appoint for the
purpose.
Jurisdiction and Powers of the High Courts
• Court of Record – Article 215
• Existing powers to continue – Article 225
• Writ jurisdiction – Article 226
• Power of superintendence over all courts – Article 227
• Control over subordinate courts – Article 235
• Power to transfer cases – Article 228
Jurisdiction and Powers of the High Courts
• Court of Record
• High Courts to be courts of record.—Every High Court shall be a court of
record and shall have all the powers of such a court including the power to
punish for contempt of itself.
• The power to punish for contempt vested in a Court of Record under Article
215 does not, however, extend to punishing for the contempt of a superior
court. Such a power has never been recognised as an attribute of a court of
record nor has the same been specifically conferred upon the High Courts
under Article 215…The logic is simple. If Supreme Court does not, despite the
availability of the power vested in it, invoke the same to punish for its
contempt, there is no question of a Court subordinate to the Supreme Court
doing so.
• Vitusah Oberoi v. Court of its own motion (2017)
Jurisdiction and Powers of the High Courts
• Existing powers to continue (Article 225)
• Jurisdiction of existing High Courts.—Subject to the provisions of this
Constitution and to the provisions of any law of the appropriate Legislature
made by virtue of powers conferred on that Legislature by this
Constitution, the jurisdiction of, and the law administered in, any existing
High Court, and the respective powers of the Judges thereof in relation to
the administration of justice in the Court, including any power to make
rules of Court and to regulate the sittings of the Court and of members
thereof sitting alone or in Division Courts, shall be the same as immediately
before the commencement of this Constitution:
• Provided that any restriction to which the exercise of original jurisdiction
by any of the High Courts with respect to any matter concerning the
revenue or concerning any act ordered or done in the collection thereof
was subject immediately before the commencement of this Constitution
shall no longer apply to the exercise of such jurisdiction.
Jurisdiction and Powers of the High Courts
• Writ Jurisdiction (Article 226)
• Powers wider than the Supreme Court
• Can be issued for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III
and for any other purpose.
• Writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus,
prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, or any of them
• The power to issue directions, orders or writs to any Government,
authority or person may also be exercised by any High Court exercising
jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause of action,
wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of such power, notwithstanding
that the seat of such Government or authority or the residence of such
person is not within those territories.
Jurisdiction and Powers of the High Courts
• Article 227: Power of superintendence over all courts by the High
Court.—(1) Every High Court shall have superintendence over all courts
and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises
jurisdiction.
• Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provision, the High
Court may—
• (a) call for returns from such courts;
• (b) make and issue general rules and prescribe forms for regulating the
practice and proceedings of such courts; and
• (c) prescribe forms in which books, entries and accounts shall be kept by
the officers of any such courts
• But power does not extend to courts or tribunals constituted under any
law relating to Armed Forces
Jurisdiction and Powers of the High Courts
• Article 235: Control over subordinate courts.—The control over
district courts and courts subordinate thereto including the posting
and promotion of, and the grant of leave to, persons belonging to the
judicial service of a State and holding any post inferior to the post of
district judge shall be vested in the High Court, but nothing in this
article shall be construed as taking away from any such person any
right of appeal which he may have under the law regulating the
conditions of his service or as authorising the High Court to deal with
him otherwise than in accordance with the conditions of his service
prescribed under such law.
Jurisdiction and Powers of the High Courts
• Article 228. Transfer of certain cases to High Court.—If the High
Court is satisfied that a case pending in a court subordinate to it
involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of this
Constitution the determination of which is necessary for the
disposal of the case, it shall withdraw the case and may—
• (a) either dispose of the case itself, or
• (b) determine the said question of law and return the case to the
court from which the case has been so withdrawn together with a
copy of its judgment on such question, and the said court shall on
receipt thereof proceed to dispose of the case in conformity with
such judgment.
Subordinate Judiciary
• Constitute the very backbone of the
Indian judicial system
• Divided into Civil and Criminal Courts
• Subordinate Civil Judiciary
• Three tier structure
• Jurisdiction on the basis of
• Pecuniary limits
• Territorial limits
• Subject matter
• District Court
• Other two tiers are known by
different names in different states
• Civil Judge (Senior Division)
• Civil Judge (Junior Division)
 Subordinate Judiciary
• Subordinate Criminal Judiciary
• Three tier
• Governed by the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
• On the basis of punishments that can be imposed
• Other statutes can confer power to impose higher penalty like Water Act Section 49 (3)
• Sessions Courts
• The District Court
• Sessions cases
• Which imposes higher penalties
• The Chief Judicial Magistrate’s Court
• Punishments which does not exceed more than seven years
• Judicial Magistrate
• Can be further subdivided into First Class and Second Class
• Metropolitan areas
• Chief Metropolitan Magistrate
• Metropolitan Magistrate
Subordinate Judiciary
• District Judges are appointed by the Governor in consultation with
the High Court
• An advocate with seven years of experience or those in service
• Article 233
• Appointments of persons other than district judges to the judicial
service of a State shall be made by the Governor of the State in
accordance with rules made by him in that behalf after consultation
with the State Public Service Commission and with the High Court
exercising jurisdiction in relation to such State.
• Article 234