High Courts of India (Articles 214–231) for UPSC

By Dooit UPSC expert · 11 August 2026 · 14 min read

The High Courts of India are the highest courts at the State level, governed by Articles 214 to 231 in Part VI, Chapter V of the Constitution. There are 25 High Courts as of 2026. Each is a court of record with wide powers — including the writ jurisdiction under Article 226, which is actually broader than the Supreme Court's own writ power under Article 32. For UPSC this is a double-scoring chapter: Prelims mines the exact articles, the appointment process and the retirement age, while Mains GS Paper 2 mines judicial independence, the collegium debate and the High Court's role as the guardian of both Fundamental Rights and ordinary legal rights. Learn the Supreme Court and the High Court as a pair, and half the judiciary syllabus falls into place.

In thirty years of coaching I have watched aspirants pour effort into the Supreme Court and then treat the High Courts as a footnote — "the same thing, one level down." That is exactly the assumption Prelims punishes. The High Court is not a smaller Supreme Court; on one crucial power, the writ jurisdiction under Article 226, it is actually wider. Every year a question turns on that single distinction, or on the retirement age, or on which article creates a common High Court, and the marks quietly walk away from candidates who skimmed. Here we will fix the constitutional provisions the way Prelims demands them, decode the appointment machinery and the collegium-versus-NJAC story, settle the Article 226-versus-Article 32 confusion for good, and then draw the clean High Court-versus-Supreme Court comparison that examiners reward.

Where the High Courts sit in the Constitution

Start with the map, not the article numbers. The Indian Constitution builds a single, integrated judiciary — one pyramid with the Supreme Court at the apex, the High Courts below it at the State level, and the subordinate courts (district and sessions courts) at the base. There is no separate set of "State courts" and "central courts" as you find in the United States. A single hierarchy interprets both central and State law, and the High Court is the pivot of that hierarchy — supervising everything below it and answerable, in appeal, to the Supreme Court above.

The provisions live in Part VI, Chapter V, Articles 214 to 231. Fix the anchor articles first, because Prelims tests them by number:

• Article 214 — there shall be a High Court for each State.
• Article 215 — every High Court shall be a court of record with the power to punish for contempt.
• Article 216 — a High Court consists of a Chief Justice and such other judges as the President may from time to time appoint (no fixed number).
• Article 217 — appointment and conditions of office of a High Court judge.
• Article 226 — the power of every High Court to issue writs.
• Article 227 — the power of superintendence over all courts and tribunals in its territory.
• Article 231 — Parliament may establish a common High Court for two or more States, or for a State and a Union Territory.

How many High Courts are there in India?

As of 2026, India has 25 High Courts. Notice the mismatch: there are 28 States and 8 Union Territories, but only 25 High Courts. The reason is Article 231 — Parliament can create one common High Court serving more than one State or a State plus a UT. Six of the 25 High Courts exercise jurisdiction over more than one State or Union Territory. The Bombay High Court, for instance, serves Maharashtra, Goa and the UTs of Dadra & Nagar Haveli and Daman & Diu; the Guwahati High Court serves several North-Eastern States; and the Punjab & Haryana High Court is a common court for two States.

The newest High Court is the Andhra Pradesh High Court, established on 1 January 2019 after the bifurcation of the erstwhile combined court following the creation of Telangana. The oldest three — Calcutta, Bombay and Madras — were all established in 1862. That "1862 trio" and the "25 total, 6 common" facts are exactly the kind of one-liners a statement-based Prelims question is built around, so carry them precisely.

Appointment of High Court judges: Article 217 and the collegium

This is the most examined mechanic on the topic, and the one most candidates blur with the Supreme Court's process. Slow down here. Under Article 217, every judge of a High Court is appointed by the President, but the consultation set is what you must memorise, and it differs by post:

That is the bare constitutional text. In practice, appointments run through the collegium system — a judge-led mechanism where the Chief Justice of India and the senior-most Supreme Court judges recommend names, and the executive's "consultation" has been read to mean effective judicial primacy. This did not come from the words of Article 217; it came from a line of Supreme Court judgments (the Second and Third Judges Cases) that read "consultation" as "concurrence".

The government tried to change this. The 99th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2014 created the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) to replace the collegium with a body including the CJI, two senior judges, the Union Law Minister and two eminent persons. In 2015, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court struck down the 99th Amendment and the NJAC Act by a 4:1 majority, holding that the independence of the judiciary — and judicial primacy in appointments — is part of the basic structure of the Constitution. The collegium system was thereby revived and remains in force. This is a live GS Paper 2 debate; connect it to the wider basic structure doctrine, which is the constitutional principle the Court used to protect judicial independence here.

Qualifications, tenure, salary and removal

Round out the office with the conditions Prelims tests as a cluster. To be appointed a High Court judge under Article 217(2), a person must be a citizen of India and either have held a judicial office in India for at least ten years, or have been an advocate of a High Court (or two or more such courts in succession) for at least ten years. Note the contrast with the Supreme Court, which additionally allows a "distinguished jurist" — the High Court list has no jurist category.

• Tenure / retirement age: a High Court judge holds office until the age of 62 years — three years lower than the Supreme Court's 65. The age was raised from 60 to 62 by the 15th Amendment, 1963.
• Resignation: a judge may resign by writing to the President.
• Removal: a High Court judge is removed the same way as a Supreme Court judge — by the President after an address by both Houses of Parliament, passed by a special majority in the same session, on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity. The procedure is governed by the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968. No High Court judge has ever actually been removed.
• Transfer: the President, after consulting the CJI, may transfer a judge from one High Court to another (Article 222).
• Salaries: charged on the Consolidated Fund of the State (pensions come from the Consolidated Fund of India), and cannot be varied to a judge's disadvantage during tenure — a deliberate safeguard of independence.

Jurisdiction and powers of the High Court

A High Court is not a single-function court. Its powers fan out across several heads, and a good Mains answer lists them cleanly rather than lumping them together:

• Original jurisdiction — the power to hear certain matters directly, without appeal from a lower court: writ petitions under Article 226, election petitions, contempt of court, and (in the older presidency High Courts of Bombay, Calcutta and Madras) certain civil cases above a value threshold.
• Writ jurisdiction (Article 226) — the flagship power, covered in detail below.
• Appellate jurisdiction — the High Court hears appeals in civil and criminal matters from subordinate courts; it is the principal court of appeal in the State.
• Supervisory jurisdiction (Article 227) — the power of superintendence over all courts and tribunals within its territorial jurisdiction (except military tribunals). This is administrative as well as judicial and has no parallel in the Supreme Court's powers over High Courts.
• Control over subordinate courts — Articles 233–237 give the High Court a decisive say in the appointment, posting and promotion of district judges and in disciplinary control over the subordinate judiciary.
• Court of record (Article 215) — its proceedings are permanent precedent and it can punish for its own contempt.
• Power to transfer cases (Article 228) — if a case in a subordinate court involves a substantial question of law on the interpretation of the Constitution, the High Court can withdraw it and decide the constitutional question itself.

Article 226 vs Article 32: the distinction that decides marks

Here is the single most important comparison on this topic, and the one candidates most often get backwards. Both articles empower a court to issue the five writs — habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, certiorari and quo warranto. But their scope differs, and the High Court's is wider.

Read what the difference does. Because the High Court can issue writs "for any other purpose", you often go to the High Court first even for a non-Fundamental-Right grievance — an arbitrary government order, a service dispute, a licensing refusal — that the Supreme Court could not touch under Article 32. The trade-off is protection: Article 32 is a Fundamental Right and cannot be suspended except during a National Emergency in the manner the Constitution allows, whereas Article 226 is not. If you want the mechanics of the five writs themselves, work through the dedicated writs in the Indian Constitution chapter alongside this one.

High Court vs Supreme Court: the clean comparison

Examiners love a crisp institutional contrast, and this is one you should be able to reproduce from memory. Study the two courts as a pair and the differences become the answer:

The features they share are as testable as the ones they differ on. Both are courts of record, both have judges removable only by the parliamentary address route on proved misbehaviour or incapacity, and both enjoy the same constitutional guarantees of independence — security of tenure, salaries charged on a Consolidated Fund, and a bar on discussing their conduct in the legislature except during removal. Learn the shared safeguards and the differences together, and you can answer any variation the paper throws at you. For the apex court's own provisions, pair this with the Supreme Court of India chapter.

How the independence of the High Court is protected

Judicial independence is not a slogan; the Constitution builds it out of specific provisions, and a strong Mains answer names them. The mode of appointment keeps the collegium — and therefore the judiciary — central to who becomes a judge. Security of tenure means a judge cannot be removed except by the rigorous parliamentary process. Fixed service conditions, with salaries charged on the Consolidated Fund and protected from adverse variation, insulate judges from executive pressure. The judge's conduct cannot be discussed in Parliament or a State legislature except on a removal motion. And the High Court's power to punish for contempt protects its authority. Set these against the collegium-versus-NJAC debate and you have a balanced answer: the Constitution protects independence, but the mechanism for choosing judges remains genuinely contested. The Governor's role in appointments, incidentally, is one place where State politics meets the judiciary — a link worth reading with the Governor of a State chapter.

Common traps, and Prelims vs Mains treatment

Let me name the errors I see most often, so you can inoculate yourself before the exam does it for you:

• Getting the retirement age wrong. High Court judge 62, Supreme Court judge 65. Reverse them and you lose a certain mark.
• Assuming Article 32 is wider than Article 226. It is the other way round on scope — Article 226 covers "any other purpose" too.
• Thinking there is a High Court for every State. There are 25 High Courts for 28 States and 8 UTs, because Article 231 allows common High Courts.
• Confusing seat and bench, or High Court and subordinate courts. The High Court sits above the district and sessions courts and supervises them under Article 227.
• Saying a distinguished jurist can be a High Court judge. That category exists only for the Supreme Court, not the High Court.

For Prelims, the yield is in the static provisions — the article numbers, the appointment consultees, the retirement age, the number of courts, and the Article 226-versus-32 scope. For Mains GS Paper 2, this appears under the structure and functioning of the judiciary, judicial independence, and appointments, where the collegium debate is your ready analytical hook. This integrated way of studying — provisions for Prelims, debates for Mains — is exactly what we push in the Indian Polity preparation strategy guide.

How to actually study this chapter

Begin with the bare text of Articles 214, 215, 217, 226, 227 and 231 — read them once slowly before you touch any note. Then build a single one-page revision sheet: the anchor articles, the appointment consultees for the Chief Justice versus other judges, the qualifications, the retirement age of 62, the heads of jurisdiction, and the Article 226-versus-32 table. That page is your revision unit; return to it every fortnight until the numbers are reflex. Because the High Court's appointment machinery is inseparable from the collegium and the 2015 verdict, pair the chapter with the constitutional amendment process — the 99th Amendment is a textbook example of an amendment that was passed by the required special majority and ratification yet still struck down for violating the basic structure. Study the two courts side by side, never in isolation, and the whole judiciary section of the syllabus stops feeling like two separate chapters.

This is precisely the kind of high-yield, easily-confused institution our AI is built to drill. On Dooit you can generate targeted MCQs on Articles 214–231, get the Article 226-versus-32 distinction and the two retirement ages tested until they stick, and have your judicial-independence answer evaluated against the collegium-versus-NJAC framework — in English or Hindi. Learn the chapter here; let the app make sure it stays put till exam day.

Frequently asked questions