Original Jurisdiction of High Courts

HC original jurisdiction — the power of a High Court to hear a case at first instance, rather than only on appeal — was not created afresh by the Constitution. Article 225 instead carried forward the jurisdiction that each existing High Court already possessed on the eve of the Constitution's commencement, while removing one specific colonial-era restriction and setting the stage for a uniform power that the Constituent Assembly considered essential: the power to issue writs.

Continuity of Pre-Constitution Jurisdiction — Article 225

Article 225 provides that, subject to the Constitution and to any law made by the appropriate Legislature under its constitutional powers, the jurisdiction of an existing High Court, the law it administers, and the powers of its judges in relation to the administration of justice — including the power to make rules of court and to regulate sittings, whether by a judge sitting alone or in a Division Bench — remain the same as they were immediately before the Constitution commenced. In effect, Article 225 is a continuity provision: rather than listing out every power a High Court has, it simply preserves whatever jurisdiction already existed, and leaves Parliament or the State Legislature free to add to or modify it by law.

The Chartered High Courts and Original Civil Jurisdiction

This continuity provision is significant because the High Courts of British India did not all start on an equal footing. The High Courts of Calcutta, Bombay and Madras were established under royal charters and, through this lineage, inherited a form of original jurisdiction analogous to that of the King's Bench Division in England — including a form of ordinary original civil jurisdiction confined to the Presidency towns in which they sat. High Courts set up later for other provinces did not inherit this original civil jurisdiction in the same way and functioned predominantly as appellate courts. Article 225 preserved this uneven historical position as it stood, rather than equalising it, which is why the three Presidency High Courts continue to be distinguished by their original civil-side jurisdiction even today.

Removing the Bar on Original Jurisdiction over Revenue Matters

One restriction, however, was specifically addressed rather than merely preserved. Under the pre-Constitution legal framework, the original jurisdiction of the High Courts was barred with respect to matters concerning revenue, or concerning any act ordered or done in the collection of revenue. This bar — inherited from the Government of India Act, 1935 — was widely resented by the legal profession, and its removal was described in the Constituent Assembly as a change with the near-universal support of lawyers and litigants who had found the restriction, along with the accompanying loss of the High Courts' power of superintendence over subordinate courts under the 1935 Act, to be a genuine hardship. Article 225 accordingly carries a proviso ending this restriction on original jurisdiction in revenue matters as it stood immediately before the Constitution's commencement, so that it ceased to apply going forward.

From Three Chartered Courts to a Nationwide Writ Power

The debate on Article 225 in the Constituent Assembly is also where the case for a nationwide power to issue prerogative writs was made. K.M. Munshi pointed out that, at the time, only the High Courts of Calcutta, Bombay and Madras — as inheritors of the King's Bench Division's jurisdiction — could issue prerogative writs, and only within the original jurisdiction of their respective Presidency towns; every other High Court in the country lacked this power altogether. Members supporting the relevant amendment argued that if the power to issue writs for the enforcement of fundamental and other rights were left with the Supreme Court alone, a citizen anywhere in the country would effectively have to travel to Delhi to seek such a remedy. The solution proposed — and eventually enacted as the separate writ-jurisdiction provision of the Constitution — was to give every High Court in India a similar power to issue writs within its own jurisdiction, removing the old geographic limitation tied to the three Presidency towns.

Jurisdiction Over Bars Created by Later Amendments

The existence of original jurisdiction also matters when a later law tries to exclude the courts altogether. Paragraph 7 of the Tenth Schedule, inserted by the Fifty-Second Amendment Act, 1985 to deal with anti-defection, purported to bar the jurisdiction of any court — including the High Courts — over the disqualification of a member under that Schedule. In Kihoto Hollohon v. Zachillhu (1993), the Supreme Court held this bar-of-jurisdiction clause invalid for want of the special ratification required for constitutional amendments affecting the judiciary under the proviso to Article 368(2), which meant courts retained their jurisdiction to review such disqualification decisions after all. The case illustrates that a legislative or constitutional attempt to strip courts, including High Courts, of jurisdiction is itself subject to constitutional limits.

A Single, Integrated Judicial System

Underlying Article 225 and the broader design of the High Courts is a deliberate choice made during the framing of the Constitution: despite adopting a federal, dual-polity structure for legislative and executive power, India was given a single, integrated judiciary rather than separate hierarchies of federal and State courts. The High Courts and the Supreme Court together form one unified system of courts exercising jurisdiction over both Union and State laws, an arrangement reinforced by placing subjects such as civil and criminal procedure in the Concurrent List so that remedial procedure does not vary sharply from State to State.

UPSC Relevance

Prelims

• Article 225 continues the pre-Constitution jurisdiction, law administered, and powers of judges of an existing High Court, subject to the Constitution and to legislation.
• Only the Calcutta, Bombay and Madras High Courts historically possessed original civil jurisdiction, confined to their Presidency towns.
• The proviso to Article 225 removed the pre-Constitution bar on High Courts' original jurisdiction over revenue matters.

Mains

• Discuss how Article 225 illustrates the Constitution's general approach of continuing pre-existing institutional arrangements while making targeted corrections.
• Examine the significance of India's choice of a single, integrated judiciary over a dual federal-and-State court system.

FAQ

What does Article 225 do? It continues the jurisdiction, applicable law, and judicial powers that an existing High Court had immediately before the Constitution commenced, subject to the Constitution and to legislation.

Which High Courts have original civil jurisdiction? Historically, the Calcutta, Bombay and Madras High Courts, as chartered courts that inherited jurisdiction analogous to the King's Bench Division, within their Presidency towns.

What restriction did Article 225 remove? The pre-Constitution bar on a High Court's original jurisdiction over matters concerning revenue or the collection of revenue.

How is original jurisdiction different from writ jurisdiction? Original jurisdiction under Article 225 is the continuation of a High Court's pre-existing power to hear certain matters at first instance; writ jurisdiction is the separate, uniform power (extended to every High Court after the Article 225 debate) to issue writs for enforcement of rights.

Quick Revision

• Article 225 — continues pre-Constitution jurisdiction, law administered, and rule-making powers of existing High Courts.
• Calcutta, Bombay, Madras High Courts — chartered courts with original civil jurisdiction in their Presidency towns.
• Article 225 proviso — ended the old bar on original jurisdiction over revenue matters.
• CAD debate on Article 225 laid the ground for extending writ power to all High Courts (later Article 226).
• Kihoto Hollohon v. Zachillhu (1993) — Tenth Schedule's bar on court jurisdiction over disqualification struck down for want of Article 368(2) ratification.
• India has a single, integrated judiciary despite its federal structure.

Sources

• The Constitution of India, Article 225 — https://legislative.gov.in/constitution-of-india
• Constituent Assembly Debates — https://www.constitutionofindia.net
• Kihoto Hollohon v. Zachillhu, 1992 Supp (2) SCC 651 — Supreme Court of India

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.