Article 218

Article 218 of the Constitution of India ensures the extension of specific constitutional provisions applicable to the Supreme Court to the High Courts. It serves as a connecting link between the two highest tiers of the judiciary, maintaining uniformity in their structure, service conditions, and constitutional safeguards. The article is vital in ensuring judicial independence, consistency in governance, and a cohesive judicial framework throughout the country.

Background and Constitutional Framework

The Indian judicial system is a unified structure, with the Supreme Court at the apex and the High Courts functioning below it as the highest courts of the states. While both are constitutionally distinct, they share several structural and procedural similarities. Article 218, located in Chapter V of Part VI of the Constitution, reinforces this unity by making certain provisions relating to the Supreme Court applicable to the High Courts.
The framers of the Constitution intended to maintain a consistent standard for the appointment, service, and removal of judges across both levels of courts. This ensures not only administrative uniformity but also the preservation of judicial independence at every level.

Key Provisions of Article 218

Article 218 explicitly states that clauses (4) and (5) of Article 124, which pertain to the Supreme Court, shall also apply to High Courts, with necessary modifications. Wherever the term “Supreme Court” appears in those clauses, it is to be substituted with “High Court” to make the provision contextually relevant.

• Article 124(4): This clause outlines the procedure for the removal of a Supreme Court judge, providing that a judge shall not be removed except by an order of the President passed after an address by each House of Parliament supported by a special majority on the grounds of proved misbehaviour or incapacity.
• Article 124(5): This clause empowers Parliament to make laws regulating the procedure for the presentation of such an address and for the investigation and proof of the grounds for removal.

By extending these provisions to High Court judges, Article 218 ensures that judges at both levels of the higher judiciary enjoy the same protection from arbitrary removal and are governed by equivalent service safeguards.

Judicial Appointments and Service Conditions

While the appointment of High Court judges is governed by Article 217, Article 218 guarantees that their service conditions and removal procedures mirror those applicable to the Supreme Court. This uniformity maintains consistency in judicial hierarchy and upholds the constitutional principle of equality before the law within the judiciary itself.
Thus, under Article 218 read with Article 124(4) and (5):

• The removal process for a High Court judge requires impeachment by Parliament, identical to that for a Supreme Court judge.
• The Parliament has the power to regulate the procedure for such removal through legislation.
• The President of India acts as the constitutional authority to formalise the removal, ensuring the decision carries the weight of executive sanction following parliamentary approval.

These provisions collectively ensure that no judge can be removed at the whim of the executive, preserving judicial independence — a fundamental feature of the Constitution.

Judicial Interpretation and Case Law

Several landmark cases have interpreted and reinforced the principles underlying Article 218 and its associated provisions.

• Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (1993): Commonly known as the Second Judges’ Case, it reaffirmed the primacy of the judiciary in matters of appointment and transfer of judges. Although primarily concerning Articles 124 and 217, its implications extended to Article 218 by strengthening the uniform standards of judicial independence across both courts.
• In Re: Special Reference No. 1 of 1998: The Supreme Court clarified the consultative process in judicial appointments, establishing the collegium system, which equally applies to the appointment of High Court judges through Article 217 and indirectly supports the spirit of Article 218.
• National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Case (2015): The Supreme Court struck down the NJAC Act as unconstitutional, reaffirming that judicial primacy in appointments is essential for judicial independence. This decision, while centred on Articles 124 and 217, further cemented the uniformity intended by Article 218 between the two levels of higher judiciary.

Through these judgments, the Supreme Court has consistently maintained that the same constitutional safeguards and standards must protect both Supreme Court and High Court judges, ensuring parity in the judicial system.

Relationship with Related Constitutional Articles

Article 218 functions in conjunction with several other key articles that define the powers, functions, and service conditions of High Court judges:

• Article 124: Provides the foundational framework for the appointment and removal of Supreme Court judges.
• Article 217: Governs the appointment, qualifications, and tenure of High Court judges.
• Article 219: Requires every High Court judge to take an oath or affirmation before entering office.
• Article 221: Deals with the salaries, allowances, and privileges of High Court judges.
• Article 224: Permits the appointment of additional or acting judges to manage workload fluctuations.

Collectively, these provisions ensure that High Courts operate with similar constitutional safeguards and professional dignity as the Supreme Court, reinforcing the unity of India’s judicial structure.

Implications of Article 218

The application of Article 124(4) and (5) to High Courts through Article 218 has several significant implications:

• Uniformity in Judicial Standards: It ensures that both Supreme Court and High Court judges enjoy identical constitutional protections regarding removal and service conditions.
• Judicial Independence: By providing equal safeguards to High Court judges, the Article protects them from political or executive pressures, fostering impartiality.
• Separation of Powers: The requirement of a parliamentary process for the removal of judges maintains a balance among the three organs of government.
• Constitutional Consistency: It prevents any discrepancy in the judicial hierarchy by extending similar rules and procedures across all higher courts.

The principle underlying Article 218 also serves as a constitutional check against arbitrary interference in judicial affairs, preserving the dignity and credibility of the judiciary.

Administrative and Functional Parity

Article 218 not only applies to matters of service and removal but also indirectly strengthens the administrative parity between the Supreme Court and High Courts. Both are empowered to frame their own procedural rules, manage internal administration, and regulate their functioning independently. The consistent application of service-related provisions ensures that High Courts remain institutionally autonomous yet functionally harmonised with the Supreme Court.

Constitutional Significance

The inclusion of Article 218 in the Constitution underscores the framers’ vision of a unified judiciary. By extending the protections and procedures applicable to the Supreme Court to High Courts, it preserves the integrity of the judicial system and strengthens public confidence in its impartiality.
It also reinforces the basic structure doctrine, which identifies judicial independence as an essential feature of the Constitution. The article ensures that both tiers of the higher judiciary are governed by consistent principles, enabling them to act as effective guardians of the Constitution and protectors of fundamental rights.