Article 215

Article 215 of the Constitution of India declares that every High Court shall be a court of record and shall have all the powers of such a court, including the power to punish for contempt of itself. This provision confers upon High Courts both dignity and authority as superior judicial institutions within their respective states, ensuring that their proceedings, judgments, and records are recognised as authoritative and legally binding.

Constitutional Provision

Article 215 provides:

“Every High Court shall be a court of record and shall have all the powers of such a court including the power to punish for contempt of itself.”

This provision places all High Courts in India on a constitutional pedestal similar to the Supreme Court, which is also a court of record under Article 129.

Meaning of a Court of Record

A court of record is one whose acts, proceedings, and judicial decisions are preserved in perpetuity and serve as authoritative evidence of the matters adjudicated. The records of such courts cannot be challenged or questioned before any other authority, except by higher constitutional courts.
The concept originates from English common law, where the superior courts of justice were designated as courts of record due to the authoritative nature of their proceedings and judgments.
Being a court of record confers two principal attributes on the High Courts:

1. Perpetual Preservation of Records: The judgments, decrees, and proceedings are permanently recorded and preserved as authentic testimony of judicial actions.
2. Power to Punish for Contempt: The court has the inherent authority to ensure respect for its dignity, uphold judicial discipline, and maintain public confidence in the administration of justice.

Powers of High Courts as Courts of Record

The High Courts possess all powers incidental to their status as courts of record, including:

1. Power to Preserve and Authenticate Judicial Records:
   • All judgments, decrees, and proceedings of the High Court are maintained as permanent legal records.
   • These records serve as authoritative precedents and may be cited in future judicial or administrative proceedings.
2. Power to Punish for Contempt of Court:
   • High Courts can take cognisance of acts that scandalise the court, interfere with the administration of justice, or violate court orders.
   • This power extends to both civil contempt (willful disobedience of court orders) and criminal contempt (acts that obstruct justice or lower the court’s authority).
   • The object of this power is to protect the dignity and effectiveness of the judicial system, not to shield judges from fair criticism.
3. Power to Review and Correct Records:
   • As courts of record, High Courts have the inherent jurisdiction to review, correct, or clarify their own records and judgments to ensure accuracy and justice.
4. Authority to Establish Precedent:
   • The judgments of High Courts act as binding precedents for subordinate courts within their jurisdiction, thereby ensuring consistency and predictability in the application of law.

Significance of the Power to Punish for Contempt

The power of contempt vested in High Courts serves multiple constitutional purposes:

• It upholds the majesty and authority of the judiciary.
• It prevents any interference in the due administration of justice.
• It ensures compliance with court orders and maintenance of judicial decorum.
• It acts as a deterrent against defamatory attacks or obstructive behaviour targeting the court or its officers.

This power is not merely statutory but constitutional and inherent, as recognised by the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, which regulates but does not limit the contempt jurisdiction of the High Courts.

Judicial Precedents and Landmark Case Law

1. In Re: Vinay Chandra Mishra (1995):The Supreme Court highlighted that the power to punish for contempt is an essential component of judicial independence and authority. High Courts must exercise it to protect the dignity of the bench and maintain public confidence in justice.
2. K. K. Verma v. Union of India (1954):The Court elaborated on the nature of courts of record, affirming that High Courts possess inherent powers independent of statutory grants, including contempt powers.
3. M. S. Ahlawat v. State of Haryana (2000):The Supreme Court reaffirmed that High Courts can initiate and punish for contempt to uphold the rule of law and judicial propriety.
4. S. S. Khandekar v. State of Maharashtra (2000):This case dealt with procedural safeguards in contempt proceedings, emphasising adherence to natural justice while exercising contempt powers.
5. E.M.S. Namboodiripad v. T.N. Nambiar (1970):The Court ruled that fair and reasonable criticism of judicial conduct does not amount to contempt unless it impairs public confidence in the judiciary.

Through these rulings, the judiciary has balanced the constitutional right to free expression (Article 19(1)(a)) with the need to preserve the dignity of judicial institutions.

Constitutional Significance of Article 215

The inclusion of Article 215 in the Constitution serves several important purposes:

• Judicial Independence: It empowers the High Courts to act independently, free from external pressures.
• Authority of Record: It ensures that the High Courts’ judgments serve as permanent and authoritative references in legal practice.
• Institutional Integrity: It provides constitutional recognition to the High Courts’ authority to enforce discipline within the judicial system.
• Consistency in Law: By maintaining official judicial records, the High Courts contribute to the development of uniform legal standards across the country.

Limitations on the Contempt Power

While the power of contempt is inherent, it is not absolute. The exercise of this power must be fair, reasonable, and consistent with constitutional rights. Limitations include:

• The principles of natural justice, including the right to be heard and the right to appeal.
• Judicial self-restraint to avoid misuse or excessive punishment.
• The requirement that contempt must be proven beyond reasonable doubt.
• The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, which defines and limits contempt offences, procedures, and punishments.

The judiciary has often reiterated that criticism of judicial conduct, if made in good faith and in the public interest, does not constitute contempt.

Relationship with Other Constitutional Articles

Article 215 complements several other provisions concerning the powers and functions of High Courts:

• Article 214: Establishes a High Court for each state.
• Article 226: Empowers High Courts to issue writs for the enforcement of rights.
• Article 227: Grants supervisory jurisdiction over subordinate courts.
• Article 235: Vests control over the subordinate judiciary in the High Court.

Together, these Articles uphold the High Court’s role as the custodian of justice and protector of constitutional values within the state.

Historical and Comparative Perspective

The concept of a court of record has its origins in English common law, where superior courts such as the King’s Bench and Court of Chancery were considered courts of record due to their permanent judicial records and inherent powers to punish for contempt. The framers of the Indian Constitution adopted this principle to strengthen the authority and autonomy of Indian High Courts.

Practical Implications

In practice, the High Courts’ status as courts of record manifests through:

• The preservation of judicial archives and precedents for reference and citation.
• The exercise of contempt jurisdiction to ensure compliance with judgments.
• The ability to correct and review their own orders to prevent miscarriage of justice.
• The binding nature of their decisions on all subordinate courts within their territorial jurisdiction.