The high court, like the Supreme Court, has been given broad and powerful powers. It is the state's highest court of appeals. It is the guardian of citizens' fundamental rights. It is the guardian of citizens' fundamental rights. It has the authority to interpret the Constitution. It also serves as a supervisory and consulting body.

However, there are no specific provisions in the Constitution governing the jurisdiction and powers of a high court. It simply establishes a high court's jurisdiction and powers. It simply establishes a high court's jurisdiction and powers. It merely states that the jurisdiction and powers of a high court must be the same as they were before to the adoption of the Constitution, which grants a high court jurisdiction over tax concerns (which it did not enjoy in the pre-constitution era). Other parts of the Constitution grant a high court additional powers such as writ jurisdiction, superintendence, consultative power, and so on. Furthermore, it gives Parliament and state legislatures the authority to amend a high court's jurisdiction and powers.

At present, a high court enjoys the following jurisdiction and powers:

 

1) Original jurisdiction.

2) Writ jurisdiction.

3) Appellate jurisdiction.

4) Supervisory jurisdiction.

5) Control over subordinate courts.

6) Power of judicial review.

7) Power of judicial review.

                The present jurisdiction and powers of a high court are governed by (a) the constitutional provisions, (b) the Letters Patent, (c) the Acts of Parliament, (d) the Acts of State Legislature, (e) Indian Penal Code, 1973, and (g) Civil Procedure Code, 1908.

 

1. Original Jurisdiction:

It means the power of a high court to hear disputes in the first instance, not by way of appeal. It extends to the following:

• Matters of admiralty, will, marriage, divorce, company laws and contempt of court.
• Disputer 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.
• The four high courts (i.e., Calcutta, Bombay, Madras and Delhi High Courts) have original civil jurisdiction in cases of higher value.

Before 1973, the Calcutta, Bombay and Madras High Courts also had original criminal jurisdiction. This was fully abolished by the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973

 

2. Writ Jurisdiction:

Article 226 of the Constitution authorises a high court to issue writs such as habeas corpus, mandamus, certiorari, prohibition, and quo-warrento for any reason. The phrase "for any other purpose" relates to the enforcement of a common law right. The high court has the authority to issue writs of ordinary legal right. The high court has the right to issue writs to any person, authority, or government not only within its geographical jurisdiction but also outside it if the cause of action arises within its territorial jurisdiction.

The high court's writ jurisdiction (under Article 226) is not exclusive, but rather concurrent with the Supreme Court's writ power (under Article 32). It means, when the fundamental rights of a person are violated, the aggrieved party has the choice of moving either the high court or the Supreme Court. This is because the Supreme Court can only issue writs for the enforcement of basic rights and not for any other reason, and it does not extend to cases where an ordinary legal right is alleged to be violated.

The Supreme Court ruled in the Chandra Kumar case (1997) that the writ jurisdiction of both the high court and the Supreme Court is a component of the basic structure of the Constitution. As a result, it cannot be removed or omitted even through a constitutional amendment.

3. Appellate Jurisdiction:

                A high court is primarily a court of appeal. It hears appeals against the judgements of subordinate courts functioning in its territorial jurisdiction. It has appellate jurisdiction in both civil and criminal matters. Hence, the appellate jurisdiction of a high court is wider than its original jurisdiction.

(I) Civil Matters:

The civil appellate jurisdiction of a high court is as follows:

• First appeals from the orders and judgements of the district courts, additional district courts and other subordinate courts lie directly to the high court, on both questions of law and fact, if the amount exceeds the stipulated limit.
• Second appeals from the orders and judgements of the district court or other subordinate courts lie to the high court in the cases involving questins of law only (and not questions of fact).
• The Calcutta, Bombay and Madras High Courts have provision for intra-court appeals. When a single judge of the high court has decided a case (either under the original or appellate jurisdiction of the high court), an appeal from such a decision lies to the division bench of the same high court.
• Appeals from the decisions of the administrative and other tribunals lie to the division bench of the state high court. In 1997, the Supreme Court ruled that teh tribunals are subject to the writ jurisdiction of the high courts. Consequently, it is not possible for an aggrieved person to approach the Supreme Court directly against the decisions of the tribunals, without first going to the high courts.

(II) Criminal Matters:

The criminal appellate jurisdiction of a high court is as follows:

• Appeals from the judgements of sessions court and additional sessions court lie to the high court if the sentence is one of imprisonment for more than seven years. It should also be noted here that a death sentence (popularly known as capital punishment) awarded by a sessions court or an additional sessions court should be confirmed by the high court before it can be executed, whether there is an appeal by the convicted person or not.
• In some cases specified in various provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code (1973), the appeals from the judgements of the assistant sessions judge, metropolitan magistrate or other magistrates (judicial) lie to the high court.

 

4. Supervisory Jurisdiction:

A high court has the power of superintendence over all courts and tribunals functioning in its territorial jurisdiction (except military courts or tribunals). Thus, it may:

• Call for returns from them;
• Make and issue, general rules and prescribe forms for regulating the practice and proceedings of them;
• Prescribe forms in which books, entries and accounts are to be kept by them; and
• Settle the fees payable to the sheriff, clerks, officers and legal practitioners of them.

This power of superintendence of a high court is very broad because,

• it extends to all courts and tribunals whether they are subject to the appellate jurisdiction of the high court or not;
• it covers not only administrative superintendence but also judicial superintendence;
• (it is a revisional jurisdiction; and
• it can be suo-motu (on its own) and not necessarily on the application of a party.

However, this power does not vest the high court with any unlimited authority over the subordinate courts and tribunals. It is an extraordinary power and hence has to be used most sparingly and only in appropriate cases. Usually, it is limited to,

• excess of jurisdiction,
• gross violation of natural justice,
• error of law,
• disgregard to the law of superior court,
• perverse findings, and
• manifest injustice.

5. Control over Subordinate Courts:

In addition to its appellate jurisdiction and supervisory jurisdiction over the subordinate courts as mentioned above, a high court has an administrative control and other powers over them. These include the following:

• It is consulted by the governor in the matters of appointment, posting and promotion of district judges and in the appointments of persons to the judicial service of the state (other than district judges).
• It deals with the matters of posting, promotion, grant of leave, transfer and discipline of the members of the judicial service of the state (other than district judges)
• It can withdraw a case pending in subordinate court if it involves a substantial question of law that require the interpretation of the Constitution. It can then either disposes of the case itself or determine the question of law and return the case to the subordinate court with its judgement.
• Its law is binding on all subordinate courts functioning within its territorial jurisdiction in the same sense as the law declared by the Supreme Court is binding on all courts in India.

 

6. A Court of Record:

As a court of record, a high court has two powers, such as:

• The judgements, proceedings and acts of the high courts are recorded for perpetual memory and testimony. These records are admitted to be of evidentiary value and cannot be questioned when produced before any subordinate court. They are recognised as legal precedents and legal references.
• It has power to punish for contempt of court, either with simple imprisonment or with fine or with both.

The expression ‘contempt of court’ has not been defined by the Constitution. However, the expression has been defined by the Contempt of Court Act of 1971. Under this, contempt of court may be civil or criminal.

Civil contempt means wilful disobedience t any judgement, order, writ or other process of court wilful breach of an undertaking given to a court.

Criminal contempt means the publication of any matter or doing an act which –

• scandalises or lowers the authority of a court; or
• prejudices or interferes with the due course of a judicial proceeding; or
• interferes or obstructs the administration of justice in any other manner.

However, innocent publication and distribution of some matter, fair and accurate report of judicial proceedings, fair and reasonable criticism of judicial acts and comment on administrative side of the judiciary do not amount to contempt of court.

As a court of record, a high court also has the power to review and correct its own judgement or order or decision, even though no specific power to review and correct its own judgement or order or decision, even though no specific power of review is conferred on it by the Constitution. The Supreme Court, on the other hand, has been specifically conferred with the power of review by the constitution.

 

7. Power of Judicial Review:

Judicial review is the power of a high court to examine the constitutionality of legislative enactments and executive orders of both the Central and State governments. On examination, if they are found to be violative of the Constitution (ultra-vires), they can be declared as illegal, unconstitutional and invalid (null and void) by the high court. Consequently, they cannot be enforced by the government.

 

Though the phrase ‘Judicial Review’ has no where been used in the Constitution, the provisions of Articles 13 and 226 explicitly confer the power of judicial review on a high court. The constitutional validity of a legislative enactment or an executive order can be challenged in a high court on the following three grounds:

• it infringes the fundamental rights (Part III)
• it is outside the competence of the authority which has framed it, and
• it is repugnant to the constitutional provisions.

The 42^nd Amendment Act of 1976 curtailed the judicial review power of high court. It debarred the high courts from considering the constitutional validity of any central law. However, the 43^rd Amendment Act of 1977 restored the original position.