Article 223
Article 223 of the Constitution of India ensures the uninterrupted functioning of the judiciary by providing for the appointment of an Acting Chief Justice in the High Courts. This provision serves as a constitutional mechanism to maintain judicial continuity when the permanent Chief Justice is unavailable due to vacancy, absence, or any other cause.
Background and Constitutional Context
The framers of the Indian Constitution incorporated Article 223 to uphold judicial independence and administrative stability in the High Courts. It reflects the constitutional design that no High Court should remain without a head, even temporarily. The article complements other provisions such as Article 217, which governs the appointment and conditions of High Court judges, and Article 222, which allows for the transfer of High Court judges.
Article 223 falls under Chapter V of Part VI of the Constitution, which deals with the High Courts in the States. Its inclusion signifies the importance placed on judicial leadership and the smooth operation of the judicial system at the state level.
Circumstances for Appointment
The President of India may appoint an Acting Chief Justice in any of the following circumstances:
- When the office of the Chief Justice of a High Court falls vacant.
- When the Chief Justice is unable to perform their duties due to absence, illness, or any other reason.
This ensures that judicial proceedings and administrative functions of the High Court are not hindered by temporary vacancies or incapacities.
Authority and Process of Appointment
The President of India holds the constitutional authority to appoint an Acting Chief Justice under Article 223. The appointment is made from among the other judges of the same High Court.
Although the Constitution does not prescribe a detailed procedure, the practice generally involves:
- Recommendation by the Chief Justice of India and the Chief Justice of the concerned High Court.
- Consultation with relevant constitutional authorities.
- Formal appointment by the President through an official notification.
The process is designed to ensure both expediency and adherence to the principle of judicial independence.
Significance and Purpose
The purpose of Article 223 is to maintain the continuity of judicial administration and avoid any leadership vacuum in the High Courts. Its main objectives include:
- Ensuring uninterrupted judicial work and case management.
- Preserving the hierarchy and discipline of the judiciary.
- Providing stable leadership during periods of transition.
By enabling the immediate appointment of an Acting Chief Justice, the provision ensures that the constitutional and administrative duties of the High Court—such as allocation of cases, supervision of subordinate courts, and judicial review—are performed without delay.
Historical Development and Intent
The idea of appointing an Acting Chief Justice originated from the colonial judicial system, where temporary appointments were made to maintain the court’s functioning in the absence of the Chief Justice. During the Constituent Assembly Debates (1948–1949), members emphasised the importance of a stable judiciary and the necessity of preventing any disruption in judicial proceedings. Consequently, Article 223 was adopted to provide a clear constitutional framework for such temporary appointments.
Judicial and Administrative Implications
Although there are no landmark Supreme Court judgments directly interpreting Article 223, its application has been recognised in several administrative and judicial contexts. In cases relating to judicial appointments and the separation of powers, such as Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (1993) and the Second Judges’ Case, the Supreme Court reiterated the importance of judicial independence and the limited scope of executive interference in judicial matters.
The appointment of an Acting Chief Justice ensures that:
- Administrative decisions such as transfers, promotions, and case distribution continue without interruption.
- Judicial efficiency and access to justice are not compromised.
- The constitutional balance between the executive and judiciary remains intact.
Current Practices and Examples
In contemporary practice, the appointment of an Acting Chief Justice is executed swiftly to avoid disruption. For instance, whenever a Chief Justice retires or is transferred to another High Court, the senior-most judge of that court is generally appointed as the Acting Chief Justice until a new permanent Chief Justice assumes office.
This practice follows the convention of seniority and experience, ensuring that the individual appointed possesses adequate judicial competence and administrative capability.
Potential Issues and Criticism
While Article 223 serves an essential constitutional purpose, certain issues have been raised concerning:
- Lack of clarity on the specific criteria for selecting an Acting Chief Justice.
- Extent of executive influence, as the appointment is formally made by the President, an executive authority.
- Temporary nature of the appointment, which may sometimes lead to limited administrative decision-making power.
Despite these concerns, the constitutional convention of consulting the Chief Justice of India acts as a safeguard to prevent any misuse of executive power.