Constitution of India
Article 215: High Courts to be courts of record
Part VI — The States (Chapter V — The High Courts in the States)
Article 215 (no sub-divisions)
WHAT IT SAYS: 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. WHAT IT MEANS: 1. High Court records (judgments, decrees, orders) are preserved permanently and serve as conclusive legal evidence. 2. These records cannot be questioned by any subordinate court. 3. High Courts possess inherent constitutional power to punish for contempt — both civil and criminal. 4. This power is constitutional, not statutory — the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 regulates but cannot take it away. 5. Mirrors Article 129, which confers identical status on the Supreme Court. KEY DOCTRINE: Doctrine of Inherent Contempt Jurisdiction — the power to punish for contempt flows from the Constitution itself, is sui generis, and cannot be abrogated by any legislation short of a constitutional amendment.
Constitutional Inspiration
SOURCE(S): 1. English Common Law — Courts of Record doctrine (King's Bench, Court of Chancery) Original provision: Superior English courts were designated 'courts of record' with perpetual records and inherent power to punish contempt. What India kept: Both the concept of permanent authoritative records AND the inherent contempt power. 2. Government of India Act, 1935 — Section 220 Original provision: High Courts under the 1935 Act functioned as courts of record with contempt powers. What India kept: Elevated this from statutory to constitutional status to insulate it from legislative interference. INDIA'S SPECIFIC ADAPTATIONS: 1. Constitutional entrenchment — Unlike English common law (unwritten), India codified court-of-record status in the written Constitution to give it permanence. 2. Explicit mention of contempt power — The phrase 'including the power to punish for contempt of itself' was deliberately added to remove any ambiguity. 3. Parallel architecture (Art. 129 + Art. 215) — Both SC and HCs were made courts of record, creating a uniform superior court framework across the federal judiciary.
Constituent Assembly Debate
DEBATED ON: 6 June 1949 (CAD Volume VIII) DRAFT ARTICLE NUMBER: Draft Article 192 KEY SPEAKERS: 1. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar (Chairman, Drafting Committee) — Proposed replacing the entire Draft Article 192 with the present text and splitting the original article into two parts. 2. No other member spoke — the amendment was adopted without debate. AMENDMENT MOVED BY AMBEDKAR: 1. Separated 'court of record' provision (became Art. 215) from 'constitution of High Courts' provision (became Art. 216/Draft Art. 192A). 2. Inserted explicit language: 'including the power to punish for contempt of itself.' MAJOR DISAGREEMENTS: None — Article was adopted without any debate or opposition, indicating unanimous consensus. FINAL OUTCOME: Draft Article 192 was split; the court-of-record portion was adopted as Article 215 in its present form without any dissent. AMBEDKAR'S KEY QUOTE (from debate on analogous Art. 129 / Draft Art. 108, 27 May 1949): "A court of record is a court the records of which are admitted to be of evidentiary value and they are not to be questioned when they are produced before any court."
Landmark Judgments
LANDMARK JUDGMENTS: 1. Sukhdev Singh Sodhi v. Chief Justice & Judges of PEPSU High Court (1954) — Contempt power of HCs is inherent in their nature as courts of record; it is a special jurisdiction not governed by CrPC and cannot be transferred to another HC. 2. In Re: Vinay Chandra Mishra (1995) — Contempt jurisdiction under Art. 215 is sui generis and constitutional; the HC has inherent power over contempt of itself and subordinate courts even without any express statutory provision. 3. Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India (1998) — Overruled the Vinay Mishra ruling on suspension of advocate's licence; held that contempt power under Arts. 129/215 cannot extend to debarring an advocate from practice — that power rests solely with the Bar Council. 4. Vitusah Oberoi v. Court of Its Own Motion (2017) — Art. 215 does not empower a High Court to punish for contempt of the Supreme Court; the power is limited to contempt of the HC itself and courts subordinate to it. 5. In Re: Prashant Bhushan (2020) — Reaffirmed the constitutional foundation of contempt power under Arts. 129/215; held the advocate guilty of criminal contempt for tweets scandalising the judiciary. NOTABLE DISSENTS: 1. Justice P.B. Sawant in In Re: Vinay Chandra Mishra (1995) — Authored the majority but was later overruled by a larger bench in SC Bar Association (1998) on the issue of suspending an advocate's licence as part of contempt punishment. SCHOLARS & JURISTS: 1. Fali S. Nariman — Argued that criminal contempt has fallen into disuse in most civilised countries but persists in India; called for restraint in its exercise. 2. D.D. Basu — Described Art. 215 as giving High Courts a constitutional pedestal parallel to the Supreme Court, ensuring judicial dignity and independence at the state level.