Article 235

Article 235 of the Constitution of India entrusts the High Courts with control over district courts and all subordinate courts within their jurisdiction. This article forms a cornerstone of the constitutional framework designed to uphold the independence of the judiciary, ensure effective supervision of the lower courts, and maintain administrative discipline across the judicial hierarchy.

Constitutional Text and Scope

The text of Article 235 states that the control over district courts and courts subordinate to them, including the posting, promotion, and grant of leave to persons belonging to the judicial service of a State and holding posts inferior to that of a District Judge, shall vest in the High Court. However, the rights of appeal that may be provided by law to these judicial officers are preserved.
This provision thus establishes the High Court’s administrative supremacy over the subordinate judiciary, ensuring that the judicial branch operates independently from executive influence in matters of appointments, promotions, and disciplinary control.

Historical and Constitutional Context

Before the adoption of the Constitution, the control of subordinate courts was largely exercised by the executive under colonial administration. The framers of the Constitution, influenced by the experiences of colonial rule, sought to eliminate executive interference in the functioning of the judiciary.
Accordingly, Article 235 was enacted to vest this power in the High Courts, which were envisaged as independent constitutional institutions capable of exercising both judicial and administrative authority. This separation of powers between the executive and judiciary became fundamental to the doctrine of judicial independence, a principle repeatedly upheld by the Supreme Court of India.

Key Provisions and Scope of Control

The High Court’s control under Article 235 is exclusive and comprehensive. It extends to all aspects of the service and administration of the subordinate judiciary, excluding appointments and promotions to the post of District Judge, which are governed by Article 233. The areas covered under this control include:

• Posting and Transfer: The High Court has the authority to post judicial officers to various courts within the State and transfer them as required for administrative efficiency.
• Promotion: The High Court determines promotions for judicial officers below the rank of District Judge, based on seniority, merit, and performance.
• Leave and Service Conditions: The High Court grants leave and manages service-related matters such as increments and tenure of judicial officers.
• Disciplinary Authority: The High Court can initiate and conduct disciplinary proceedings, including suspension or removal, against subordinate judges.
• Administrative Supervision: The High Court exercises general supervision over the functioning of subordinate courts, ensuring uniformity, efficiency, and adherence to procedural standards.

However, judicial officers affected by administrative or disciplinary decisions retain the right to appeal or seek redress as provided by relevant State laws or judicial service rules.

Structure of the Subordinate Judiciary

The judicial service of a State, as referred to in Article 235, consists of:

• District Courts, presided over by District and Sessions Judges;
• Subordinate Civil Courts, including Civil Judges (Senior and Junior Division);
• Criminal Courts, including Chief Judicial Magistrates and Judicial Magistrates; and
• Specialised Courts, such as Family Courts, Labour Courts, and Small Cause Courts.

These courts constitute the foundation of the Indian judicial system, handling the majority of civil and criminal disputes in the country. The High Court’s administrative control ensures consistency, discipline, and impartial functioning across this vast judicial network.

Judicial Interpretation and Key Case Laws

Over time, the Supreme Court has elaborated the scope and implications of Article 235 through several landmark judgments, reinforcing the High Court’s authority while balancing judicial independence and administrative accountability.

• State of Uttar Pradesh v. Rajendra Singh (2004):The Court emphasised that the High Court’s control under Article 235 is not merely supervisory but includes the responsibility to maintain discipline and integrity among subordinate judicial officers.
• All India Judges Association v. Union of India (2002):The Supreme Court underlined the need for a fair and uniform system of service conditions, promotion, and training for subordinate judicial officers to ensure efficiency and independence in the judiciary.
• K. S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017):Although primarily concerning the right to privacy, the judgment reiterated that judicial independence, safeguarded through provisions like Article 235, forms part of the basic structure of the Constitution.
• Chief Justice of Andhra Pradesh v. L.V.A. Dixitulu (1979):The Court clarified that the High Court’s control includes disciplinary jurisdiction and the power to recommend penalties such as suspension or dismissal of subordinate judges.
• Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab (1974):It was held that even though the Governor formally issues orders of appointment or removal, such actions must be based on the recommendation and control of the High Court as mandated by Article 235.

These rulings have consistently affirmed that administrative control under Article 235 is a judicial function, not subject to interference by the executive or legislature.

Administrative Functions of the High Court

The High Court exercises its control over the subordinate judiciary through a range of administrative functions, including:

• Conducting periodic inspections of subordinate courts to assess efficiency and discipline.
• Managing promotions, transfers, and training programmes for judicial officers.
• Framing and enforcing service and conduct rules for the judiciary.
• Overseeing the maintenance of judicial records, infrastructure, and staffing.
• Ensuring fair and transparent disciplinary proceedings in cases of misconduct or incompetence.

These administrative functions are typically managed through a Registrar General and administrative committees of the High Court, functioning under the supervision of the Chief Justice.

Relationship with Articles 233 and 234

Article 235 operates in close coordination with Articles 233 and 234, which together define the structure of control and appointment in the State judiciary:

• Article 233: Empowers the Governor to appoint District Judges in consultation with the High Court.
• Article 234: Provides for recruitment of persons other than District Judges to the judicial service through consultation with the State Public Service Commission and the High Court.
• Article 235: Entrusts the High Court with control over all subordinate judicial officers in administrative and disciplinary matters.

Together, these articles ensure a balanced division of powers, wherein the executive participates in formal appointments, while the High Court exercises continuous control over the judiciary’s functioning and discipline.

Significance of Article 235

The constitutional and institutional significance of Article 235 can be summarised as follows:

• Preservation of Judicial Independence: By removing executive control over the subordinate judiciary, it ensures the judiciary’s functional and administrative autonomy.
• Accountability and Discipline: The High Court’s authority promotes accountability among subordinate judges and maintains public confidence in the judicial process.
• Uniformity in Administration: It allows for consistent supervision and standardisation of judicial procedures across the State.
• Strengthening the Rule of Law: By insulating the judiciary from political and administrative influence, it upholds the rule of law and impartial justice.

Challenges and Criticisms

Despite its vital role, the implementation of Article 235 has faced certain challenges:

• Potential Misuse of Power: Critics argue that High Courts sometimes exercise excessive control, leading to allegations of arbitrariness in transfers and disciplinary actions.
• Lack of Transparency: Administrative decisions regarding promotions and evaluations may lack transparency and objective criteria.
• Delays in Administrative Decisions: Bureaucratic inefficiencies can slow down promotions and transfers, affecting morale within the subordinate judiciary.

To address these concerns, reforms have been proposed to enhance procedural fairness, ensure objective performance evaluation, and increase administrative accountability within the judiciary.