Constitution of India
Article 214: High Courts for States
Part VI — The States (Chapter V — The High Courts in the States)
Article 214 (single provision, no sub-clauses in current text)
WHAT IT SAYS: 'There shall be a High Court for each State.' WHAT IT MEANS: The Constitution mandates the existence of a High Court as the highest judicial authority within every State — this is a constitutional obligation, not a discretionary power. KEY DOCTRINE: Doctrine of Judicial Federalism — High Courts are constitutional courts (not statutory bodies), and their existence cannot be abolished by ordinary legislation. AMENDMENT HISTORY: 1. Originally had 3 clauses — Cl.(1), Cl.(2), and Cl.(3). 2. Cl.(1) numbering '(1)' was omitted by the Constitution (7th Amendment) Act, 1956, s.29 & Schedule (w.e.f. 1-11-1956). 3. Cl.(2) — deemed pre-existing Provincial High Courts as High Courts of corresponding States — omitted by 7th Amendment, 1956. 4. Cl.(3) — stated that Chapter V provisions apply to every High Court referred to in this article — omitted by 7th Amendment, 1956. 5. Reason: States Reorganisation Act, 1956 abolished the Part A / Part B / Part C classification of States, making transitional provisions redundant.
Constitutional Inspiration
SOURCE(S): 1. Indian High Courts Act, 1861 (British Parliament) — Established the first High Courts at Calcutta, Bombay, and Madras by abolishing Supreme Courts and Sadar Adalats. Original provision: Authorized the Crown to create High Courts of Judicature in each Presidency town. What India kept: The concept of one High Court per major territorial unit as the apex court at regional level. 2. Government of India Act, 1935 — Sections 220–228 provided for High Courts in provinces. Original provision: Every High Court was a Court of Record, with a Chief Justice and judges appointed by His Majesty. What India kept: Structure of High Courts (composition, appointment mechanism, Court of Record status) carried forward almost verbatim into Articles 214–231. INDIA'S SPECIFIC ADAPTATIONS: 1. Constitutional (not statutory) guarantee of High Courts — Unlike British Acts where Parliament could alter courts freely, Art. 214 makes the existence of High Courts a constitutional mandate, protecting them from executive or legislative abolition. 2. Flexibility via Article 231 — Parliament can establish a common High Court for two or more States (e.g., Punjab & Haryana HC), balancing judicial access with administrative efficiency. 3. Integrated judicial system — High Courts operate within a single unified hierarchy under the Supreme Court, unlike the British system where provincial courts had final say in many matters before 1935.
Constituent Assembly Debate
DEBATED ON: 6 June 1949 (CAD Volume VIII) Draft Article Number: 191 KEY SPEAKERS: 1. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar (Chairman, Drafting Committee) — Proposed a substitute amendment to simplify Draft Article 191 into three clean clauses: (1) a High Court for each State, (2) deeming existing Provincial High Courts as State High Courts, (3) Chapter V provisions to apply to all High Courts. 2. Shri Raj Bahadur — Argued for deletion of exclusion of Part III States (princely states) from approach to superior courts. 3. Shri Yudhisthir Misra (Orissa States) — Supported Raj Bahadur's amendment, arguing that integrated princely states should not face anomalous exclusion from High Court jurisdiction. MAJOR DISAGREEMENTS: 1. Exclusion of Part III States — Some members objected to excluding princely states (Part III of First Schedule) from the scope of High Courts, as many had already integrated with neighbouring provinces. FINAL OUTCOME: Dr. Ambedkar's substitution amendment was adopted; the article was simplified to provide that there shall be a High Court for each State, with transitional deeming provisions for pre-existing courts. NOTE: The Assembly adopted this article without major prolonged debate, reflecting broad consensus on the necessity of strong state-level judiciary.
Landmark Judgments
LANDMARK JUDGMENTS: 1. L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997) — Held that judicial review by High Courts under Articles 226/227 is part of the basic structure of the Constitution; tribunals cannot substitute or oust High Court jurisdiction. 2. Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra (1966) — Held that High Courts are superior constitutional courts; their judicial orders cannot be challenged via writ of certiorari under Article 32, as they are not 'inferior courts'. 3. Keshavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) — Recognized judicial review (including by High Courts) as part of the basic structure doctrine, reinforcing the inviolable role of High Courts established under Art. 214. 4. Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India (1980) — Reiterated that judicial review by constitutional courts (including High Courts) protects the balance between fundamental rights and directive principles. 5. Madras Bar Association v. Union of India (2021) — Reaffirmed that tribunals cannot replace High Courts; independence of judiciary under Art. 214 read with Arts. 226/227 is constitutionally protected. NOTABLE DISSENTS: 1. Justice Hidayatullah in Mirajkar (1966) — Opined that if a High Court order violated fundamental rights, the Supreme Court could intervene under Article 32, taking a broader view of writ jurisdiction against superior courts. SCHOLARS & JURISTS: 1. D.D. Basu — High Courts under Art. 214 are constitutional courts whose existence is guaranteed; they are not creatures of statute and possess inherent jurisdiction. 2. M.P. Jain — Article 214 is the cornerstone of India's judicial federalism, ensuring decentralized access to justice while maintaining an integrated judicial hierarchy under the Supreme Court.