THE ESTABLISHMENT OF HIGH COURTS: INDIAN LEGAL HISTORY

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND AND EVOLUTION OF HIGH COURTS

Dual Judicial Systems Before 1861

  • Establishment of Dual Systems:
    • From the late 18th century, judicial administration in India developed along two parallel tracks:
      • Crown’s Courts (Supreme Courts): Created under the Regulating Act of 1773. These courts, located in presidency towns (Calcutta, Bombay, and Madras), exercised jurisdiction over British subjects, Company officials, and select categories of locals. They followed English law but allowed personal laws (Hindu/Muslim) in certain cases.
      • Company’s Courts (Sadar Adalats): Functioning outside presidency towns in the mofussil areas, these courts applied local regulations and personal laws. The Sadar Diwani Adalat (civil cases) and Sadar Nizamat Adalat (criminal cases) were at the apex of this system.
  • Characteristics of Crown’s Courts:
    • Jurisdiction limited to presidency towns.
    • Judges were barristers from England and applied English procedural laws.
    • Their authority did not extend to revenue matters or appeal cases.
  • Characteristics of Company’s Courts:
    • Administered local laws (Hindu and Muslim personal laws) and regulations framed by the East India Company.
    • Judges, who were civil servants, lacked formal legal training.
    • Jurisdiction extended over vast provincial areas.

DEFECTS OF THE DUAL SYSTEM:

  1. Jurisdictional Overlaps:
    • Supreme Courts often extended jurisdiction into the provinces using broad interpretations (e.g., considering landowners in presidency towns as “inhabitants”).
  2. Conflicting Rulings:
    • Supreme Courts and Sadar Courts often passed contradictory decisions, especially in estate disputes.
  3. Disparities in Law and Procedure:
    • Crown’s Courts applied English laws and procedures, while Company’s Courts followed Indian customs and regulations.
  4. Administrative Challenges:
    • Lack of coordination between the systems caused inefficiencies and legal uncertainty.

Steps Towards Reform:

  • Calls for reform began in the early 19th century:
    • Sir Metcalfe (1829): Proposed unifying the dual systems to reduce legal chaos.
    • Parliamentary Committees (1852-53): Recommended merging judicial systems to combine English legal principles with local customs.
  • The shift in governance to the British Crown in 1858 accelerated the move towards unification, culminating in the Indian High Courts Act, 1861.

THE INDIAN HIGH COURTS ACT, 1861

Salient Features

  1. Purpose:
    • Unified the dual judicial systems by abolishing Supreme Courts and Sadar Adalats.
    • Established High Courts of Judicature in presidency towns (Calcutta, Bombay, and Madras).
  1. Composition of High Courts:
    • Each High Court had:
      • A Chief Justice.
      • Puisne judges (maximum of 15).
    • Judges were drawn from:
      • Barristers with at least 5 years’ standing.
      • Civil servants with at least 10 years’ experience (3 years as District Judges).
      • Judges of Small Cause Courts or Principal Sadar Ameens with 5 years of service.
      • Pleaders of High Courts or Sadar Adalats with 10 years of experience.
  1. Jurisdiction and Powers (Section 9):
    • Combined powers of the Supreme and Sadar Courts.
    • Included original, appellate, and supervisory jurisdiction over civil and criminal matters.
    • Authority extended to admiralty, testamentary, intestate, and matrimonial cases.
  1. Judicial Unification:
    • Integrated English legal expertise with the local knowledge of civil servants.
    • Ensured a single hierarchy of courts for consistency and efficiency.

JURISDICTION OF HIGH COURTS

Civil Jurisdiction

  1. Ordinary Original Jurisdiction:
    • Confined to presidency towns.
    • Excluded cases under Small Cause Courts with claims under ₹100.
  2. Extraordinary Original Jurisdiction:
    • Empowered High Courts to withdraw cases from subordinate courts and decide them.
  3. Appellate Jurisdiction:
    • Appeals from Sadar Diwani Adalat and lower civil courts.
    • Applied laws as followed by the original courts.

Criminal Jurisdiction

  1. Ordinary Original Jurisdiction: Covered presidency towns and British subjects in provinces.
  2. Extraordinary Criminal Jurisdiction: Allowed trials of cases referred by the Advocate General or subordinate courts.
  3. Appellate and Revisional Powers: Authority to hear appeals and revise decisions of lower criminal courts.

Special Jurisdictions

  1. Admiralty Jurisdiction:
    • Dealt with maritime disputes and prize claims.
  2. Testamentary Jurisdiction:
    • Power to grant probate and administer wills.
  3. Matrimonial Jurisdiction:
    • Limited to Christians.

HIGH COURTS UNDER THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ACT, 1935

Judicial Independence

  1. Judges had secure tenure until 60 years.
  2. Removal required:
    • A report from the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.
    • Grounds: Misbehavior or infirmity.
  3. Judges’ salaries and administrative expenses were charged to the Provincial Consolidated Fund, ensuring financial independence.

Changes in Composition:

  • Removed fixed quotas for barristers and civil servants, enabling merit-based appointments.

Revenue Jurisdiction:

  • Original jurisdiction over revenue matters remained restricted.

HIGH COURTS UNDER THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION

Constitutional Provisions

  1. Article 214: Establishes High Courts for each State.
  2. Article 215: Declares High Courts as Courts of Record with the power to punish for contempt.
  3. Article 226: Empowers High Courts to issue writs (habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, quo warranto) for:
    • Enforcement of Fundamental Rights.
    • Other purposes (broader than the Supreme Court’s writ jurisdiction under Article 32).
  4. Article 227: Supervisory jurisdiction over all subordinate courts and tribunals within the State.
  5. Judicial Independence:
    • Judges hold office until 62 years.
    • Removal through impeachment by Parliament for proven misbehavior or incapacity.

Writ Jurisdiction (Article 226)

  • Significance:
    • Broader than the Supreme Court’s writ jurisdiction under Article 32.
    • High Courts can address violations of non-fundamental rights.
  • Types of Writs:
    • Habeas Corpus: Protection against illegal detention.
    • Mandamus: Directs public officials to perform their duties.
    • Prohibition: Prevents overreach by lower courts or tribunals.
    • Certiorari: Quashes illegal orders of subordinate courts.
    • Quo Warranto: Challenges unlawful occupation of public office.

Supervisory Powers (Article 227)

  • Scope includes oversight of judicial and quasi-judicial bodies.
  • Ensures procedural correctness and justice delivery.
  • Invoked sparingly to prevent grave injustice or jurisdictional overreach.

SIGNIFICANT HIGH COURTS AND THEIR ROLES

Presidency High Courts:

  • Calcutta High Court (1862): Oldest High Court, retained admiralty jurisdiction.
  • Bombay and Madras High Courts: Established simultaneously with Calcutta under the same Letters Patent.

Post-Independence High Courts:

  • Allahabad High Court (1866): Originally at Agra, later shifted to Allahabad.
  • Patna High Court (1916): Covered Bihar and Orissa until Orissa High Court (1948).
  • Lahore High Court (1919): Lost to Pakistan post-Partition, replaced by Punjab High Court.

Role and Significance of High Courts

  1. Guardian of the Constitution:
    • High Courts enforce fundamental rights and ensure adherence to constitutional principles.
  2. Unifying Legal Systems:
    • Integration of diverse laws and procedures within states.
  3. Federal Role:
    • Resolve state-level disputes and maintain checks on executive and legislative actions.
  4. Judicial Independence:
    • Safeguards against executive interference ensure impartiality in justice delivery.

Important Case Laws

1. Ryots of Garabandho v. Zemindar of Parlakimedi (70 IA 129)

Facts:

  • This case involved a dispute between the ryots (peasants) of Garabandho village and the Zemindar (landowner) of Parlakimedi over certain tenancy rights.
  • The ryots alleged that the zemindar was imposing excessive demands that violated their rights under the tenancy laws applicable to the region.

Issue:

  • Could the Madras High Court issue a writ of certiorari to quash an administrative decision made outside the geographical limits of its ordinary original civil jurisdiction?

Judgment:

  • The Privy Council held that the High Court’s writ jurisdiction was restricted to its ordinary original civil jurisdiction (the presidency towns).
  • The Court stated that the prerogative writ powers inherited from the Supreme Court were confined to their territorial limits and could not extend to areas outside those boundaries.

Significance:

  • This case highlighted the territorial limitations of writ jurisdiction for presidency High Courts (e.g., Madras, Calcutta, Bombay) under British rule.
  • It clarified that writs like certiorari could not be issued beyond the jurisdiction of presidential towns before the Constitution.

2. Hamid Hasan v. Banwari Lal (51 CWN 716)

Facts:

  • A dispute arose regarding the legitimacy of a public officer’s appointment.
  • The petitioner sought a writ of quo warranto from the Calcutta High Court, challenging the right of the respondent to occupy a public office located outside the city of Calcutta.

Issue:

  • Could the Calcutta High Court issue a writ of quo warranto for a public office located beyond its ordinary original civil jurisdiction?

Judgment:

  • The Privy Council reaffirmed the principle that the writ jurisdiction of the High Court was territorially confined.
  • It ruled that the Calcutta High Court could not issue a writ of quo warranto for matters outside its jurisdiction.

Significance:

  • The judgment reinforced the territorial limitations on prerogative writs.
  • It demonstrated the constraints on the powers of High Courts in addressing administrative or legal violations in areas beyond the presidency towns.

3. Post-Constitutional Cases (Article 226)

Legal Development Post-1947:

  • The Constitution of India (1950) significantly altered the scope of High Court jurisdiction under Article 226:
    • Empowered High Courts to issue writs not only for fundamental rights enforcement but also for any other legal purpose.
    • Extended writ jurisdiction to cover the entire territorial jurisdiction of the High Court, including all districts within the state.

Case Developments:

  • Expanded Territorial Jurisdiction:
    • Unlike the pre-Constitution era, High Courts could now issue writs across the whole state, removing geographical restrictions.
  • Uniform Writ Powers:
    • All High Courts, whether presidency courts or provincial courts, were granted the same authority under Article 226.
  • Example:
    • High Courts across India used Article 226 to issue writs such as habeas corpus, mandamus, and certiorari, irrespective of location.

Significance:

  • The post-Constitution era removed historical disparities in writ jurisdiction.
  • High Courts became pivotal in protecting constitutional rights and providing remedies for administrative and legal grievances across their states.
Share this :
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
WhatsApp
Author picture