Organisation of the Judiciary in India

Judiciary organisation hierarchy in India refers to the constitutional design that binds the Supreme Court, the High Courts, and the subordinate courts into one unified judicial system rather than running separate central and state court structures. Even though India divides legislative and executive power between the Union and the states, the Constitution deliberately built a single pyramid of courts, with the Supreme Court at the apex, that applies both Union and state laws.

A Single Integrated Judiciary

Some federations run parallel judicial hierarchies — one for federal law, another for state law. India's Constitution-makers rejected that model. In the Constituent Assembly, B.R. Ambedkar explained that the Constitution kept one integrated judiciary even though the polity itself is dual, with separate governments at the Union and state levels. The High Courts and the Supreme Court together administer both Union and state law, since civil and criminal procedure sit largely in the Concurrent List — this removes the confusion that separate state court systems and codes would otherwise create.

This design also fits the general test of a federation: dual government, distribution of powers, supremacy of the Constitution, and an independent judicial authority to interpret that supremacy. India's single judiciary supplies this last element — one body of courts empowered to interpret the Constitution and check both the Union and the state governments.

Structure and Hierarchy

High Courts: Composition and Control over Subordinate Courts

Article 214 provides that there "shall be a High Court for each State," and under Article 231 Parliament may instead establish one common High Court for two or more states. Every High Court consists of a Chief Justice and such other judges as the President appoints from time to time. The President may also appoint additional judges for up to two years to help clear arrears of work, and may appoint an acting judge when a permanent judge other than the Chief Justice is temporarily unable to act, or is officiating as Chief Justice.

As head of the judiciary in the state, a High Court exercises administrative control over the subordinate courts — District Judges, City Civil Court judges, Metropolitan Magistrates, and other members of the judicial service — besides its appellate and supervisory jurisdiction over them. Under Article 233, the Governor appoints, posts, and promotes District Judges, but only in consultation with the High Court.

Article 227 further gives every High Court a power of superintendence over all courts and tribunals within its territory. This power is supervisory, not appellate: it exists to keep subordinate courts and tribunals within the limits of their own authority, must be exercised sparingly, and cannot be used as an appeal in disguise.

Appointment and the Collegium System

Article 124 requires that Supreme Court judges be appointed by the President on the recommendation of the Chief Justice of India. For High Courts, the proposal for appointment must be initiated by the Chief Justice of that High Court. Where the constitutional functionaries involved hold differing views, the opinion of the judiciary — represented by the Chief Justice of India — has been given primacy, a position laid down in Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v Union of India (1993), the Second Judges Case, which effectively created the collegium system and required the functionaries to act collectively toward an agreed decision.

Transfers of High Court judges, including a Chief Justice's transfer to another High Court, are likewise routed through the collegium — the Chief Justice of India together with the four senior-most puisne judges of the Supreme Court — which weighs the views of the judges concerned before deciding.

In 2015, a five-judge Constitution Bench struck down the National Judicial Appointments Commission, which would have replaced the collegium with a body including members outside the judiciary, as unconstitutional — holding that it violated the independence of the judiciary and the separation of powers, both treated as basic features of the Constitution.

Safeguards for Judicial Independence

Several constitutional provisions insulate judges from ordinary political pressure:

• Article 146(3) charges Supreme Court judges' and staff's administrative expenses and salaries on the Consolidated Fund of India, outside the yearly parliamentary vote.
• Article 221 gives High Court judges comparable protection: salary cannot be varied to their disadvantage after appointment, except during a Financial Emergency under Article 360(4)(b).
• Article 124(7) bars a retired Supreme Court judge, and Article 220 a retired High Court judge, from pleading or acting before any court or authority in India (with narrow exceptions), stopping retired judges from commercially exploiting their judicial standing.
• Retirement age for High Court judges was raised from 60 to 62 by the Constitution (Fifteenth Amendment) Act, 1963.

Even so, the High Court is not entirely free of Union oversight. As Alladi Krishnaswami explained in the Constituent Assembly, the Constitution placed High Courts under certain Union controls — over appointment and transfer, for instance — precisely to keep them outside the reach of "provincial politics." An Indian High Court, though it heads the state judiciary, is thus not as sharply separated from the central government as a State Supreme Court is in the United States.

Jurisdiction and Powers

Under Article 136, the Supreme Court may grant special leave to appeal from the judgment, decree, sentence, or order of any court or tribunal in India, except one constituted under a law relating to the armed forces — an appellate power treated as unlimited in scope.

As guardian of the Constitution, the Supreme Court also exercises judicial review over legislation. No express provision empowers courts to invalidate laws, but because the Constitution imposes definite limits on every organ of the state, a law that transgresses those limits becomes void — and it is for the courts to decide when that has happened.

UPSC Relevance

Prelims

• Key articles: 124, 136, 146, 214, 220, 221, 227, 231, and 233.
• Single integrated judiciary versus separate federal/state court systems.
• Collegium system versus the National Judicial Appointments Commission.

Mains

• How India's single integrated judiciary strengthens federalism and the rule of law (GS2).
• Constitutional safeguards protecting the independence of the higher judiciary.
• The collegium-versus-NJAC debate in terms of separation of powers.

FAQ

Q. What does "organisation of the judiciary" mean in the Indian context? The single, unified hierarchy of courts — Supreme Court, High Courts, and subordinate courts — that together administer both Union and state law, instead of two separate court systems.

Q. Why did India adopt one integrated judiciary rather than separate central and state courts? Civil and criminal law and procedure fall largely in the Concurrent List, so a single hierarchy avoids the diversity of remedies that separate state court systems would create.

Q. How are Supreme Court and High Court judges appointed? The President appoints Supreme Court judges on the CJI's recommendation (Article 124); High Court appointments are initiated by that High Court's Chief Justice, with the judiciary's view given primacy under the collegium system set out in the Second Judges Case (1993).

Q. What happened to the National Judicial Appointments Commission? A five-judge bench struck it down in 2015 for violating the independence of the judiciary and the separation of powers, leaving the collegium in place.

Q. Can a retired judge practise law after leaving the bench? Not freely. Article 124(7) bars a retired Supreme Court judge, and Article 220 a retired High Court judge, from pleading or acting before Indian courts or authorities, subject to limited exceptions.

Quick Revision

• One integrated judiciary — Supreme Court, High Courts, subordinate courts — not separate central/state hierarchies.
• Article 124: SC judges appointed by the President on the CJI's recommendation.
• Article 146(3): SC's administrative expenses/salaries charged on the Consolidated Fund of India, outside parliamentary vote.
• Article 214/231: a High Court per state, or one common High Court for two or more states.
• Article 227: High Court superintendence is supervisory, not appellate, used sparingly.
• Article 233: Governor appoints District Judges in consultation with the High Court.
• Articles 124(7)/220: restrict retired SC/HC judges from pleading or acting before Indian courts/authorities.
• Second Judges Case (1993) created the collegium; NJAC struck down in 2015 for violating judicial independence.
• Article 136: SC's special leave to appeal covers any court/tribunal in India except military tribunals.

Sources

• Constitution of India — full text — Ministry of Law and Justice, legislative.gov.in
• Supreme Court of India — official website — Supreme Court of India
• Constitution (Fifteenth Amendment) Act, 1963 — legislative.gov.in

Further Reference

For deeper reading on this topic and the wider polity syllabus, these standard works are recommended:

• M. Laxmikanth, Indian Polity (McGraw Hill) — the standard UPSC handbook.
• D.D. Basu, Introduction to the Constitution of India (LexisNexis) — authoritative constitutional-law treatment.
• The Constitution of India — Bare Act — the official text.

Disclosure: As an Amazon Associate, UPSC.wiki earns from qualifying purchases — at no extra cost to you.