Every high court (whether exclusive or common) is composed of a chief justice and as many other justices as the president deems necessary from time to time. As a result, the Constitution does not define the strength of a high court and instead leaves it to the President's discretion. As a result, the President chooses the strength of a high court on a case-by-case basis, based on its workload.

Judges:

1. Appointment of Judges:

The President appoints the judges of a high court. The President appoints the Chief Justice after consulting with the Chief Justice of India and the Governor of the state in question. The Chief Justice of India and the Governor of the State concerned are responsible for the appointment of other judges. The Chief Justice of the relevant High Court is also consulted for the appointment of other judges. In the case of a common high court for two or more states, the president consults with the governors of all the states involved.

The Supreme Court ruled in the Second Judges case (1993) that no appointment of a high court judge can be made unless it is in accordance with the Chief Justice of India's opinion. In the Third Judges case (1998), the Supreme Court ruled that while appointing high court justices, the Chief Justice of India shall consult with a collegium of two of the Supreme Court's senior-most judges. Thus, the exclusive view of India's Chief Justice does not constitute the 'consultation' procedure.

2. 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.

From the above, it is clear that the Constitution has not prescribed a minimum age for appointment as a judge of a high court. Moreover, unlike in the case of the Supreme Court, the Constitution makes no provision for appointment of a distinguished jurist as a judge of a high court.

3. Oath or Affirmation:

A person appointed as a judge of a high court, before entering upon his office, has to make and subscribe an oath or affirmation before the governor of the state or some person appointed by him for this purpose. In his oath, a judge of a high court swears:

• to bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India:
• to uphold the sovereignty and integrity of India
• to duly and faithfully and to the best of his ability, knowledge and judgement perform the duties of the office without fear or favour, affection  or ill-will; and
• to uphold the Constitution and the laws.

4. Tenure of Judges:

The constitution has not fixed of a judge of high court. However, it makes the following four provisions in this regard:

• He holds office until he attained the age is to be decided by the president after consultation with the chief justice of India and the decisions of the president is final.
• He can resign his office by writing to the president.
• He can be removed from his office by the president on the recommendation of the parliament.
• He vacates his office when he is appointed as a judge of the Supreme Court or when is transferred to another high court.

5. Removal of Judges:

A high court judge can be dismissed from his position by an order from the President. The President may issue the removal order only when the parliament has provided him with an address in the same session requesting such removal. A special majority of each House of Parliament must support the address (i.e., a majority of the total membership of that house and majority of not less than two-thirds of the members of that house present and voting). There are two reasons for removal: proven misbehaviour or incapacity. As a result, a judge of a higher court can be removed in the same way and on the same grounds as a Supreme Court justice.

The Enquiry Act (1968) regulates the procedure relating to the removal of a judge of a high court by the process of impeachment:

• A removal motion signed by 100 members (in the case of Lok Sabha) or 50 members (in the case of Rajya Sabha) is to be given to the Speaker/Chairman.
• The Speaker/Chairman may admit the motion or refuse to admit it.
• If it is admitted, then the Speaker/Chairman is to constitute a three-member committee to investigate into the charges.
• The committee should consist of 1. the chief justice or a judge of the Supreme Court, ii. a chief justice of a high court, and iii. a distinguished jurist.
• If the committee finds the judge to be guilty of misbehaviour or suffering from incapacity, the House can take up the Consideration of the motion.
• After the motion is passed by each House of Parliament by special majority, an address is presented to the president for removal of the judge.
• Finally, the president passes an order removing the judge.

From the above, it is clear that the procedure for the impeachment of a judge of a high court is the same as that for a judge of the Supreme Court.

It is interesting to know that no judge of a high court has been impeached so far.

6. Salaries and Allowances:

The wages, allowances, privileges, leave, and pensions of high court judges are set by Parliament on a regular basis. Except in the case of a financial necessity, they cannot be changed to their detriment after their appointment. The remuneration of the Chief Justice was raised from Rs. 30,000 to Rs. 90,000 per month in 2009, and that of a judge from Rs. 26,000 to Rs. 80,000 per month. They are also given a stipend and free housing, as well as other benefits such as medical care, car telephones, and so on.

The retired chief justice and judges are entitled to 50% of their last drawn salary as monthly pension.

7. Transfer of Judges:

After consultation with the Chief Justice of India, the President may transfer a judge from one high court to another. On transfer, he is entitled to receive, in addition to his salary, such compensation allowance as Parliament may determine.

The Supreme Court determined in 1977 that the transfer of high court justices could be used only in extraordinary circumstances, in the public interest, and not as a form of punishment. Again in 1994, the Supreme Court ruled that judicial review is required to prevent arbitrariness in the appointment of justices. However, only the judges who transferred can file a challenge.

In the Third Judges case (1998), the Supreme Court ruled that, in the event of a transfer of high court judges, the Chief Justice of India should consult with the chief justices of the two high courts, in addition to the collegiums of four senior most judges of the Supreme Court (one from which the judge is being transferred and the other receiving him). As a result, the exclusive opinion of India's Chief Justice does not constitute the 'consultation' process.

8. Acting Chief Justice:

The President can appoint a judge of high court as an acting chief justice of the high court, when:

• the office of chief justice of the high court is vacant; or
• the chief of the high court is temporarily absent; or
• the chief justice of the high court is unable to perform the duties of his office.

9. Additional and Acting Judges:

The President can appoint duly qualified person as additional judges of a high court for a temporary period not exceeding two years when:

• there is a temporary increase in the business of the high court; or
• there are arrears of work in the high court.

The President can also appoint a duly qualified person as an acting judge of a high court when a judge of that high court (other than the chief justice is;

• Unable to perform the duties of his office due to absence or any other reason; or
• Appointed to act temporarily as chief justice of that high court.

An acting judge holds office until the permanent judge resumes his office. However, both additional and acting judge cannot hold office attaining the age of 62 years.

10. Retired Judges:

The chief justice of a state's high court may, at any time, request that a retired judge of that high court or any other high court sit as a judge of that state's high court for a limited term. He can only do so with the President's and the person to be appointed's prior approval. Such a judge is entitled to any allowances the President deems appropriate. He will also have all of the same jurisdiction, powers, and privileges as a judge on that court. However, he will not be considered a judge of that high court.