Part VI: The States

Chapter V - The High Courts in the States

Article 229: Officers and Servants and the Expenses of High Courts

Original Article:

(1) Appointments of officers and servants of a High Court shall be made by the Chief Justice of the Court or such other Judge or officer of the Court as he may direct:

Provided that the Governor of the State may by rule require that in such cases as may be specified in the rule no person not already attached to the Court shall be appointed to any office connected with the Court save after consultation with the State Public Service Commission.

(2) Subject to the provisions of any law made by the Legislature of the State, the conditions of service of officers and servants of a High Court shall be such as may be prescribed by rules made by the Chief Justice of the Court or by some other Judge or officer of the Court authorised by the Chief Justice to make rules for the purpose:

Provided that the rules made under this clause shall, so far as they relate to salaries, allowances, leave or pensions, require the approval of the Governor of the State.

(3) The administrative expenses of a High Court, including all salaries, allowances and pensions payable to or in respect of the officers and servants of the Court, shall be charged upon the Consolidated Fund of the State, and any fees or other moneys taken by the Court shall form part of that Fund.

Explanation:

Article 229 emphasizes judicial independence by granting High Courts the authority to control their staffing, conditions of service, and administrative expenses. This Article underscores the importance of an autonomous judiciary, critical for impartial legal processes and efficient court management.

Clause Headings:

1. Authority of the Chief Justice in Appointments

The first clause of Article 229 states that appointments for High Court officers and servants are to be made by the Chief Justice. Alternatively, the Chief Justice may direct another Judge or officer to make these appointments. This autonomy is central to the High Court’s independence, preventing external influence over staffing.

Amendment Details: The Constitution (Seventh Amendment) Act, 1956 removed the phrase "in which the High Court has its principal seat," allowing the Chief Justice to oversee appointments universally across the state, regardless of where the High Court’s primary location is.

Practical Scenario: For instance, in the Allahabad High Court, the Chief Justice recently appointed several officers without any interference from the state executive, ensuring an impartial environment within the judicial system.

2. Setting Service Conditions for High Court Staff

The second clause entrusts the Chief Justice or an authorized Judge/officer to prescribe the service conditions for High Court staff, including factors like salaries, allowances, leave, and pensions. These rules require the Governor's approval to ensure alignment with state policies, thus balancing judicial independence with state oversight.

Example: A notable case occurred in Karnataka, where the Chief Justice drafted new service rules for clerical staff, which were subsequently approved by the Governor. This balance ensures that state policies do not impede judicial autonomy.

3. Administrative Expenses from the Consolidated Fund

Clause 3 mandates that High Court expenses, including salaries, allowances, and pensions, be drawn from the state's Consolidated Fund, with any Court fees also added to this fund. This provision secures financial stability for the judiciary, minimizing dependence on variable annual budgets and facilitating uninterrupted court functions.

Example: The Rajasthan High Court's administrative expenses, drawn directly from the state’s Consolidated Fund, illustrate how this provision ensures the judiciary’s operational continuity and financial independence.

Historical Context and Amendment Significance:

The principles enshrined in Article 229 find roots in the British colonial system, where judicial independence was safeguarded to protect against executive overreach. By vesting authority in the Chief Justice for managing appointments and service rules, the Indian Constitution reinforces this protection.

The Seventh Amendment in 1956 broadened the Chief Justice’s administrative powers, reflecting a progressive view toward judicial independence across India. This amendment removed any regional barriers that could potentially restrict the High Court’s effective administration.

Debates and Deliberations:

The Constituent Assembly debated extensively on the autonomy and administrative control of High Courts:

• Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Highlighted the need for judicial independence in administrative matters to prevent executive overreach.
• Sardar Hukam Singh: Emphasized that financial control and staffing autonomy are crucial for maintaining judicial impartiality.
• Shri Brajeshwar Prasad: Advocated for central oversight to ensure uniformity in service conditions and resource allocation.

References:

• Constitution of India (Seventh Amendment)
• Legislative debates on judicial independence
• Historical analysis of judicial autonomy in India