Article 216

Article 216 of the Constitution of India lays down the structural foundation for the composition of the High Courts across the nation. It ensures that each High Court is adequately staffed to discharge its judicial responsibilities efficiently while maintaining a delicate balance between the executive’s power of appointment and the independence of the judiciary.

Background and Constitutional Framework

The High Courts in India serve as the principal civil courts of original jurisdiction in each state and union territory. Article 216 forms part of Chapter V of Part VI of the Constitution, which deals with the High Courts in the States. According to this Article, every High Court shall consist of a Chief Justice and such other judges as the President of India may from time to time deem necessary to appoint.
The intent behind this provision is to provide flexibility in determining the judicial strength of each High Court based on its caseload, population, and regional requirements. This ensures uniformity in the judicial framework while accommodating local variations in the administration of justice.

Authority and Role of the President

The President of India holds the constitutional authority to appoint judges to the High Court. Under Article 216, the President determines not only the number of judges in each High Court but also the appointment of the Chief Justice and other puisne judges. This power, however, is not exercised arbitrarily but in consultation with key constitutional authorities — the Chief Justice of India and the Governor of the concerned state.
The President’s discretion in this matter is guided by a collaborative and consultative process designed to uphold judicial independence. The total sanctioned strength of judges in any High Court can thus be revised periodically, ensuring that the judiciary keeps pace with growing demands and changing circumstances.

Judicial Appointments Process

The appointment of High Court judges follows a consultative mechanism that reinforces judicial autonomy. When appointing judges other than the Chief Justice, the President consults the Chief Justice of India, the Governor of the state concerned, and the Chief Justice of the respective High Court.
This multi-tiered consultation ensures that judicial appointments are not influenced solely by the executive but are instead the result of collective deliberation among the highest judicial and executive authorities.
Key principles in the appointment process include:

• Consultation with the Chief Justice of India to safeguard judicial standards.
• Involvement of the Governor to reflect state-level administrative considerations.
• Recommendation from the High Court to ensure familiarity with local judicial needs.

Important Judicial Pronouncements

The interpretation and implementation of Article 216 have been shaped by several landmark decisions of the Supreme Court:

• Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (1993): Commonly known as the Second Judges’ Case, this judgment established the primacy of the judiciary in the appointment and transfer of judges, asserting that the opinion of the Chief Justice of India would have greater weight than that of the executive.
• In re: Special Reference No. 1 of 1998: This clarified that the President’s consultation with the judiciary must be meaningful and effective, involving a collegial decision-making process rather than individual discretion.
• National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act, 2014: The NJAC sought to alter the system of judicial appointments by introducing a commission that included members from the executive and civil society. However, in 2015, the Supreme Court struck down the NJAC as unconstitutional, reaffirming judicial primacy in the appointments process and upholding the independence envisaged under Articles 216 and 217.

Determination of the Number of Judges

The number of judges in each High Court is not fixed. It varies depending on the workload, pendency of cases, and administrative demands of each jurisdiction. The President periodically reviews and adjusts the sanctioned strength after assessing reports from the Ministry of Law and Justice and recommendations from the judiciary.
Additional judges may be appointed under Article 224 to manage temporary increases in workload, ensuring the expeditious disposal of pending cases.

Related Constitutional Provisions

Several other constitutional articles supplement and elaborate on the principles embodied in Article 216:

• Article 217: Specifies the procedure for the appointment and conditions of service of High Court judges.
• Article 218: Extends certain provisions applicable to Supreme Court judges to High Court judges.
• Article 224: Provides for the appointment of additional and acting judges to meet short-term requirements.

Together, these provisions create a comprehensive legal framework for maintaining an efficient and independent judiciary at the state level.

Administrative and Judicial Functions of High Courts

Beyond their judicial duties, High Courts perform critical administrative functions, including the management of subordinate courts within their jurisdiction, formulation of procedural rules, and supervision over lower courts. The Chief Justice plays a pivotal role in the allocation of cases, constitution of benches, and maintenance of judicial discipline.
The flexibility allowed under Article 216 enables High Courts to appoint additional or acting judges when necessary, thereby preventing undue delay in the delivery of justice.

Significance of Article 216

Article 216 is significant for several reasons:

• It provides the constitutional basis for the structure and composition of High Courts.
• It ensures a balance between executive authority and judicial independence.
• It allows adaptive flexibility, enabling the judiciary to respond to evolving demands.
• It reinforces the principle of separation of powers by ensuring that the judiciary remains insulated from executive interference.

By vesting the President with the authority to determine the composition of High Courts, subject to constitutional consultation, Article 216 ensures that the judiciary remains both dynamic and independent — essential attributes for maintaining the rule of law and the constitutional equilibrium envisioned by the framers.

Impact on Justice Delivery

The effective implementation of Article 216 directly influences the efficiency of justice delivery across the country. An optimal number of judges in the High Courts facilitates timely disposal of cases, reduces pendency, and enhances public confidence in the judicial system. The periodic review of judicial strength under this Article reflects an ongoing commitment to ensuring accessibility, efficiency, and impartiality in the administration of justice.