jbp123/hello · Datasets at Hugging Face

instruction stringlengths 1 84	input stringlengths 1 85	output stringlengths 1 83
9. A minister in the union or state government is not	considered as holding an office of profit. Also, the state	legislature can declare that a particular office of profit will
not disqualify its holder from its membership.	10. Kihota Hollohan v. Zachilhu, (1992).	11. However, the Chairman/Speaker need not accept the
resignation if he is satisfied that it is not voluntary or	genuine.	12. A person can remain a minister for six months, without
being a member of either house of the state legislature.	13. For a comparative study of the veto power of the president	and the governor, see Chapter 30.
14. For a comparative study of the ordinance-making power of	the president and the governor, see Chapter 30.	15. The position, in this regard, is very well analysed by J.C.
Johari in the following way: ‘The Constitution is not clear on	this point whether a bill of constitutional amendment	referred to the states for ratification by their legislatures shall
include the Vidhan Parishad or not. In practice, it may be	understood that the will of the Vidhan Sabha has to prevail.	In case the Vidhan Parishad concurs with the view of the
Vidhan Sabha, it is all right; in case it differs, the Vidhan	Sabha may pass it again and thereby ignore the will of the	Vidhan Parishad as it can do in case of a non-money bill’.
(Indian Government and Politics, Vishal, Thirteenth Edition,	2001, P. 441).	16. The Parliament Act of 1911, and the Amending Act of 1949,
have curtailed the powers of the House of Lords and	established the supremacy of the House of Commons.	17. The 44th Amendment Act of 1978 restored the freedom of
the press to publish true reports of state legislature without	its prior permission. But, this is not applicable in the case of	a secret sitting of the House.
18. Article 211 of the Constitution says that no discussion shall	take place in the legislature of a state with respect to the	conduct of any judge of the Supreme Court or of a high
language or unparliamentary conduct of a member is	prohibited.	18a. The Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation (Amendment) Act,
2015, increased the number of seats in the Legislative	Council of Andhra Pradesh from 50 to 58.	19. Under the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019,
the total number of seats fixed for the Legislative Assembly	of the Union territory of Jammu and Kashmir is 107. But, 24	seats fall in the Pakistan-occupied-Kashmir (PoK). These
seats are vacant and are not to be taken into account for	reckoning the total membership of the Assembly. In addition,	the Lieutenant Governor of the Union territory of Jammu
and Kashmir may nominate two members to the Assembly	to give representation to women, if in his opinion, women	are not adequately represented in the Assembly.
34 High Court	I	n the Indian single integrated judicial system, the high court
operates below the Supreme Court but above the subordinate	courts. The judiciary ina state consists of a high court and a	hierarchy of subordinate courts. The high court occupies the top
position in the judicial administration of a state.	The institution of high court originated in India in 1862 when the	high courts were set up at Calcutta, Bombay and Madras1. In
1866, a fourth high court was established at Allahabad. In the	course of time, each province in British India came to have its own	high court. After 1950, a high court existing in a province became
the high court for the corresponding state.	The Constitution of India provides for a high court for each	state, but the Seventh Amendment Act of 1956 authorised the
Parliament to establish a common high court for two or more	states or for two or more states and a union territory. The territorial	jurisdiction of a high court is co-terminus with the territory of a
state. Similarly, the territorial jurisdiction of a common high court is	co-terminus with the territories of the concerned states and union	territory.
At present (2019), there are 25 high courts in the country2. Out	of them, only three high courts have jurisdiction over more than	one state. Among the nine union territories, Delhi alone has a
separate high court (since 1966). The union territories of Jammu	and Kashmir and Ladakh have a common high court. The other	union territories fall under the jurisdiction of different state high
courts. The Parilament can extend the jurisdiction of a high court	to any union territory or exclude the jurisdiction of a high court	from any union territory.
The name, year of establishment, territorial jurisdiction and seat	(with bench or benches) of all the 25 high courts are mentioned in	Table 34.1 at the end of this chapter.
Articles 214 to 231 in Part VI of the Constitution deal with the	organisation, independence, jurisdiction, powers, procedures and	so on of the high courts.
COMPOSITION AND APPOINTMENT	Every high court (whether exclusive or common) consists of a	chief justice and such other judges as the president may from time
to time deem necessary to appoint. Thus, the Constitution does	not specify the strength of a high court and leaves it to the	discretion of the president. Accordingly, the President determines
the strength of a high court from time to time depending upon its	workload.	Appointment of Judges
The judges of a high court are appointed by the President. The	chief justice is appointed by the President after consultation with	the chief justice of India and the governor of the state concerned.
For appointment of other judges, the chief justice of the concerned	high court is also consulted. In case of a common high court for	two or more states, the governors of all the states concerned are
consulted by the president.	In the Second Judges case3 (1993), the Supreme Court ruled	that no appointment of a judge of the high court can be made,
unless it is in conformity with the opinion of the chief justice of	India. In the Third Judges case4 (1998), the Supreme Court	opined that in case of the appointment of high court judges, the
chief justice of India should consult a collegium of two senior-most	judges of the Supreme Court. Thus, the sole opinion of the chief	justice of India alone does not constitute the ‘consultation’
process.	The 99th Constitutional Amendment Act of 2014 and the	National Judicial Appointments Commission Act of 2014 have
replaced the Collegium System of appointing judges to the	Supreme Court and High Courts with a new body called the	National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC). However, in
2015, the Supreme Court has declared both the 99th	Constitutional Amendment as well as the NJAC Act as	unconstitutional and void. Consequently, the earlier collegium
QUALIFICATIONS, OATH AND SALARIES	Qualifications of Judges	A person to be appointed as a judge of a high court, should have
the following qualifications:	1. He should be a citizen of India.	2. (a) He should have held a judicial office in the territory of
India for ten years; or	(b) He should have been an advocate of a high court (or	high courts in succession) for ten years.
From the above, it is clear that the Constitution has not	prescribed a minimum age for appointment as a judge of a high	court. Moreover, unlike in the case of the Supreme Court, the
Consitution makes no provision for appointment of a distinguished	jurist as a judge of a high court.	Oath or Affirmation
A person appointed as a judge of a high court, before entering	upon his office, has to make and subscribe an oath or affirmation	before the governor of the state or some person appointed by him
for this purpose. In his oath, a judge of a high court swears:	1. to bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India;	2. to uphold the sovereignty and integrity of India;
3. to duly and faithfully and to the best of his ability, knowledge	and judgement perform the duties of the office without fear	or favour, affection or ill-will; and
4. to uphold the Constitution and the laws.	Salaries and Allowances	The salaries, allowances, privileges, leave and pension of the
judges of a high court are determined from time to time by the	Parliament. They cannot be varied to their disadvantage after their	appointment except during a financial emergency. In 2018, the
salary of the chief justice was increased from ₹90,000 to 2.50 lakh	per month and that of a judge from ₹80,000 to 2.25 lakh per	month6. They are also paid sumptuary allowance and provided
with free accommodation and other facilities like medical, car,	telephone, etc.	The retired chief justice and judges are entitled to 50% of their
TENURE, REMOVAL AND TRANSFER	Tenure of Judges	The Constitution has not fixed the tenure of a judge of a high
court. However, it makes the following four provisions in this	regard:	1. He holds office until he attains the age of 62 years5. Any
questions regarding his age is to be decided by the	president after consultation with the chief justice of India and	the decision of the president is final.
2. He can resign his office by writing to the president.	3. He can be removed from his office by the President on the	recommendation of the Parliament.
4. He vacates his office when he is appointed as a judge of the	Supreme Court or when he is transferred to another high	court.
Removal of Judges	A judge of a high court can be removed from his office by an order	of the President. The President can issue the removal order only
after an address by the Parliament has been presented to him in	the same session for such removal. The address must be	supported by a special majority of each House of Parliament (i.e.,
a majority of the total membership of that House and majority of	not less than two-thirds of the members of that House present and	voting). The grounds of removal are two–proved misbehaviour or
incapacity. Thus, a judge of a high court can be removed in the	same manner and on the same grounds as a judge of the	Supreme Court.
The Judges Enquiry Act (1968) regulates the procedure relating	to the removal of a judge of a high court by the process of	impeachment:
1. A removal motion signed by 100 members (in the case of	Lok Sabha) or 50 members (in the case of Rajya Sabha) is	to be given to the Speaker/Chairman.
3. If it is admitted, then the Speaker/ Chairman is to constitute	a three-member committee to investigate into the charges.	4. The committee should consist of (a) the chief justice or a
judge of the Supreme Court, (b) a chief justice of a high	court, and (c) a distinguished jurist.	5. If the committee finds the judge to be guilty of misbehaviour
or suffering from an incapacity, the House can take up the	consideration of the motion.	6. After the motion is passed by each House of Parliament by
special majority, an address is presented to the president for	removal of the judge.	7. Finally, the president passes an order removing the judge.
From the above, it is clear that the procedure for the	impeachment of a judge of a high court is the same as that for a	judge of the Supreme Court.
It is interesting to know that no judge of a high court has been	impeached so far.	Transfer of Judges
The President can transfer a judge from one high court to another	after consulting the Chief Justice of India. On transfer, he is	entitled to receive in addition to his salary such compensatory
allowance as may be determined by Parliament.	In 1977, the Supreme Court ruled that the transfer of high court	judges could be resorted to only as an exceptional measure and
only in public interest and not by way of punishment. Again in	1994, the Supreme Court held that judicial review is necessary to	check arbitrariness in transfer of judges. But, only the judge who
is transferred can challenge it.	In the Third Judges case (1998), the Supreme Court opined	that in case of the transfer of high court judges, the Chief Justice
of India should consult, in addition to the collegium of four	seniormost judges of the Supreme Court, the chief justice of the	two high courts (one from which the judge is being transferred and
ACTING, ADDITIONAL AND RETIRED JUDGES	Acting Chief Justice	The President can appoint a judge of a high court as an acting
chief justice of the high court when:	1. the office of chief justice of the high court is vacant; or	2. the chief justice of the high court is temporarily absent; or
3. the chief justice of the high court is unable to perform the	duties of his office.	Additional and Acting Judges
The President can appoint duly qualified persons as additional	judges of a high court for a temporary period not exceeding two	years when:
1. there is a temporary increase in the business of the high	court; or	2. there are arrears of work in the high court.
The President can also appoint a duly qualified person as an	acting judge of a high court when a judge of that high court (other	than the chief justice) is:
1. unable to perform the duties of his office due to absence or	any other reason; or	2. appointed to act temporarily as chief justice of that high
court.	An acting judge holds office until the permanent judge resumes	his office. However, both the additional or acting judge cannot
hold office after attaining the age of 62 years.	Retired Judges	At any time, the chief justice of a high court of a state can request
a retired judge of that high court or any other high court to act as a	judge of the high court of that state for a temporary period. He can	do so only with the previous consent of the President and also of
the person to be so appointed. Such a judge is entitled to such	allowances as the President may determine. He will also enjoy all	the jurisdiction, powers and privileges of a judge of that high court.
INDEPENDENCE OF HIGH COURT	The independence of a high court is very essential for the	effective discharge of the duties assigned to it. It should be free
from the encroachments, pressures and interferences of the	executive (council of ministers) and the legislature. It should be	allowed to do justice without fear or favour.
The Constitution has made the following provisions to	safeguard and ensure the independent and impartial functioning	of a high court.
1. Mode of Appointment	The judges of a high court are appointed by the president (which	means the cabinet) in consultation with the members of the
judiciary itself (i.e., chief justice of India and the chief justice of the	high court). This provision curtails the absolute discretion of the	executive as well as ensures that the judicial appointments are not
based on any political or practical considerations.	2. Security of Tenure	The judges of a high court are provided with the security of tenure.
They can be removed from office by the president only in the	manner and on the grounds mentioned in the Constitution. This	means that they do not hold their office during the pleasure of the
president, though they are appointed by him. This is obvious from	the fact that no judge of a high court has been removed (or	impeached) so far.
3. Fixed Service Conditions	The salaries, allowances, privileges, leave and pension of the	judges of a high court are determined from time to time by the
Parliament. But, they cannot be changed to their disadvantage	after their appointment except during a financial emergency. Thus,	the conditions of service of the judges of a high court remain
The salaries and allowances of the judges, the salaries,	allowances and pensions of the staff as well as the administrative	expenses of a high court are charged on the consolidated fund of
the state. Thus, they are non-votable by the state legislature	(though they can be discussed by it). It should be noted here that	the pension of a high court judge is charged on the Consolidated
Fund of India and not the state.	5. Conduct of Judges cannot be Discussed	The Constitution prohibits any discussion in Parliament or in a
state legislature with respect to the conduct of the judges of a high	court in the discharge of their duties, except when an	impeachment motion is under consideration of the Parliament.
6. Ban on Practice after Retirement	The retired permanent judges of a high court are prohibited from	pleading or acting in any court or before any authority in India

9. A minister in the union or state government is not

considered as holding an office of profit. Also, the state

legislature can declare that a particular office of profit will

not disqualify its holder from its membership.

10. Kihota Hollohan v. Zachilhu, (1992).

11. However, the Chairman/Speaker need not accept the

resignation if he is satisfied that it is not voluntary or

genuine.

12. A person can remain a minister for six months, without

being a member of either house of the state legislature.

13. For a comparative study of the veto power of the president

and the governor, see Chapter 30.

14. For a comparative study of the ordinance-making power of

the president and the governor, see Chapter 30.

15. The position, in this regard, is very well analysed by J.C.

Johari in the following way: ‘The Constitution is not clear on

this point whether a bill of constitutional amendment

referred to the states for ratification by their legislatures shall

include the Vidhan Parishad or not. In practice, it may be

understood that the will of the Vidhan Sabha has to prevail.

In case the Vidhan Parishad concurs with the view of the

Vidhan Sabha, it is all right; in case it differs, the Vidhan

Sabha may pass it again and thereby ignore the will of the

Vidhan Parishad as it can do in case of a non-money bill’.

(Indian Government and Politics, Vishal, Thirteenth Edition,

2001, P. 441).

16. The Parliament Act of 1911, and the Amending Act of 1949,

have curtailed the powers of the House of Lords and

established the supremacy of the House of Commons.

17. The 44th Amendment Act of 1978 restored the freedom of

the press to publish true reports of state legislature without

its prior permission. But, this is not applicable in the case of

a secret sitting of the House.

18. Article 211 of the Constitution says that no discussion shall

take place in the legislature of a state with respect to the

conduct of any judge of the Supreme Court or of a high

language or unparliamentary conduct of a member is

prohibited.

18a. The Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation (Amendment) Act,

2015, increased the number of seats in the Legislative

Council of Andhra Pradesh from 50 to 58.

19. Under the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019,

the total number of seats fixed for the Legislative Assembly

of the Union territory of Jammu and Kashmir is 107. But, 24

seats fall in the Pakistan-occupied-Kashmir (PoK). These

seats are vacant and are not to be taken into account for

reckoning the total membership of the Assembly. In addition,

the Lieutenant Governor of the Union territory of Jammu

and Kashmir may nominate two members to the Assembly

to give representation to women, if in his opinion, women

are not adequately represented in the Assembly.

34 High Court

I

n the Indian single integrated judicial system, the high court

operates below the Supreme Court but above the subordinate

courts. The judiciary ina state consists of a high court and a

hierarchy of subordinate courts. The high court occupies the top

position in the judicial administration of a state.

The institution of high court originated in India in 1862 when the

high courts were set up at Calcutta, Bombay and Madras1. In

1866, a fourth high court was established at Allahabad. In the

course of time, each province in British India came to have its own

high court. After 1950, a high court existing in a province became

the high court for the corresponding state.

The Constitution of India provides for a high court for each

state, but the Seventh Amendment Act of 1956 authorised the

Parliament to establish a common high court for two or more

states or for two or more states and a union territory. The territorial

jurisdiction of a high court is co-terminus with the territory of a

state. Similarly, the territorial jurisdiction of a common high court is

co-terminus with the territories of the concerned states and union

territory.

At present (2019), there are 25 high courts in the country2. Out

of them, only three high courts have jurisdiction over more than

one state. Among the nine union territories, Delhi alone has a

separate high court (since 1966). The union territories of Jammu

and Kashmir and Ladakh have a common high court. The other

union territories fall under the jurisdiction of different state high

courts. The Parilament can extend the jurisdiction of a high court

to any union territory or exclude the jurisdiction of a high court

from any union territory.

The name, year of establishment, territorial jurisdiction and seat

(with bench or benches) of all the 25 high courts are mentioned in

Table 34.1 at the end of this chapter.

Articles 214 to 231 in Part VI of the Constitution deal with the

organisation, independence, jurisdiction, powers, procedures and

so on of the high courts.

COMPOSITION AND APPOINTMENT

Every high court (whether exclusive or common) consists of a

chief justice and such other judges as the president may from time

to time deem necessary to appoint. Thus, the Constitution does

not specify the strength of a high court and leaves it to the

discretion of the president. Accordingly, the President determines

the strength of a high court from time to time depending upon its

workload.

Appointment of Judges

The judges of a high court are appointed by the President. The

chief justice is appointed by the President after consultation with

the chief justice of India and the governor of the state concerned.

For appointment of other judges, the chief justice of the concerned

high court is also consulted. In case of a common high court for

two or more states, the governors of all the states concerned are

consulted by the president.

In the Second Judges case3 (1993), the Supreme Court ruled

that no appointment of a judge of the high court can be made,

unless it is in conformity with the opinion of the chief justice of

India. In the Third Judges case4 (1998), the Supreme Court

opined that in case of the appointment of high court judges, the

chief justice of India should consult a collegium of two senior-most

judges of the Supreme Court. Thus, the sole opinion of the chief

justice of India alone does not constitute the ‘consultation’

process.

The 99th Constitutional Amendment Act of 2014 and the

National Judicial Appointments Commission Act of 2014 have

replaced the Collegium System of appointing judges to the

Supreme Court and High Courts with a new body called the

National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC). However, in

2015, the Supreme Court has declared both the 99th

Constitutional Amendment as well as the NJAC Act as

unconstitutional and void. Consequently, the earlier collegium

QUALIFICATIONS, OATH AND SALARIES

Qualifications of Judges

A person to be appointed as a judge of a high court, should have

the following qualifications:

1. He should be a citizen of India.

2. (a) He should have held a judicial office in the territory of

India for ten years; or

(b) He should have been an advocate of a high court (or

high courts in succession) for ten years.

From the above, it is clear that the Constitution has not

prescribed a minimum age for appointment as a judge of a high

court. Moreover, unlike in the case of the Supreme Court, the

Consitution makes no provision for appointment of a distinguished

jurist as a judge of a high court.

Oath or Affirmation

A person appointed as a judge of a high court, before entering

upon his office, has to make and subscribe an oath or affirmation

before the governor of the state or some person appointed by him

for this purpose. In his oath, a judge of a high court swears:

1. to bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India;

2. to uphold the sovereignty and integrity of India;

3. to duly and faithfully and to the best of his ability, knowledge

and judgement perform the duties of the office without fear

or favour, affection or ill-will; and

4. to uphold the Constitution and the laws.

Salaries and Allowances

The salaries, allowances, privileges, leave and pension of the

judges of a high court are determined from time to time by the

Parliament. They cannot be varied to their disadvantage after their

appointment except during a financial emergency. In 2018, the

salary of the chief justice was increased from ₹90,000 to 2.50 lakh

per month and that of a judge from ₹80,000 to 2.25 lakh per

month6. They are also paid sumptuary allowance and provided

with free accommodation and other facilities like medical, car,

telephone, etc.

The retired chief justice and judges are entitled to 50% of their

TENURE, REMOVAL AND TRANSFER

Tenure of Judges

The Constitution has not fixed the tenure of a judge of a high

court. However, it makes the following four provisions in this

regard:

1. He holds office until he attains the age of 62 years5. Any

questions regarding his age is to be decided by the

president after consultation with the chief justice of India and

the decision of the president is final.

2. He can resign his office by writing to the president.

3. He can be removed from his office by the President on the

recommendation of the Parliament.

4. He vacates his office when he is appointed as a judge of the

Supreme Court or when he is transferred to another high

court.

Removal of Judges

A judge of a high court can be removed from his office by an order

of the President. The President can issue the removal order only

after an address by the Parliament has been presented to him in

the same session for such removal. The address must be

supported by a special majority of each House of Parliament (i.e.,

a majority of the total membership of that House and majority of

not less than two-thirds of the members of that House present and

voting). The grounds of removal are two–proved misbehaviour or

incapacity. Thus, a judge of a high court can be removed in the

same manner and on the same grounds as a judge of the

Supreme Court.

The Judges Enquiry Act (1968) regulates the procedure relating

to the removal of a judge of a high court by the process of

impeachment:

1. A removal motion signed by 100 members (in the case of

Lok Sabha) or 50 members (in the case of Rajya Sabha) is

to be given to the Speaker/Chairman.

3. If it is admitted, then the Speaker/ Chairman is to constitute

a three-member committee to investigate into the charges.

4. The committee should consist of (a) the chief justice or a

judge of the Supreme Court, (b) a chief justice of a high

court, and (c) a distinguished jurist.

5. If the committee finds the judge to be guilty of misbehaviour

or suffering from an incapacity, the House can take up the

consideration of the motion.

6. After the motion is passed by each House of Parliament by

special majority, an address is presented to the president for

removal of the judge.

7. Finally, the president passes an order removing the judge.

From the above, it is clear that the procedure for the

impeachment of a judge of a high court is the same as that for a

judge of the Supreme Court.

It is interesting to know that no judge of a high court has been

impeached so far.

Transfer of Judges

The President can transfer a judge from one high court to another

after consulting the Chief Justice of India. On transfer, he is

entitled to receive in addition to his salary such compensatory

allowance as may be determined by Parliament.

In 1977, the Supreme Court ruled that the transfer of high court

judges could be resorted to only as an exceptional measure and

only in public interest and not by way of punishment. Again in

1994, the Supreme Court held that judicial review is necessary to

check arbitrariness in transfer of judges. But, only the judge who

is transferred can challenge it.

In the Third Judges case (1998), the Supreme Court opined

that in case of the transfer of high court judges, the Chief Justice

of India should consult, in addition to the collegium of four

seniormost judges of the Supreme Court, the chief justice of the

two high courts (one from which the judge is being transferred and

ACTING, ADDITIONAL AND RETIRED JUDGES

Acting Chief Justice

The President can appoint a judge of a high court as an acting

chief justice of the high court when:

1. the office of chief justice of the high court is vacant; or

2. the chief justice of the high court is temporarily absent; or

3. the chief justice of the high court is unable to perform the

duties of his office.

Additional and Acting Judges

The President can appoint duly qualified persons as additional

judges of a high court for a temporary period not exceeding two

years when:

1. there is a temporary increase in the business of the high

court; or

2. there are arrears of work in the high court.

The President can also appoint a duly qualified person as an

acting judge of a high court when a judge of that high court (other

than the chief justice) is:

1. unable to perform the duties of his office due to absence or

any other reason; or

2. appointed to act temporarily as chief justice of that high

court.

An acting judge holds office until the permanent judge resumes

his office. However, both the additional or acting judge cannot

hold office after attaining the age of 62 years.

Retired Judges

At any time, the chief justice of a high court of a state can request

a retired judge of that high court or any other high court to act as a

judge of the high court of that state for a temporary period. He can

do so only with the previous consent of the President and also of

the person to be so appointed. Such a judge is entitled to such

allowances as the President may determine. He will also enjoy all

the jurisdiction, powers and privileges of a judge of that high court.

INDEPENDENCE OF HIGH COURT

The independence of a high court is very essential for the

effective discharge of the duties assigned to it. It should be free

from the encroachments, pressures and interferences of the

executive (council of ministers) and the legislature. It should be

allowed to do justice without fear or favour.

The Constitution has made the following provisions to

safeguard and ensure the independent and impartial functioning

of a high court.

1. Mode of Appointment

The judges of a high court are appointed by the president (which

means the cabinet) in consultation with the members of the

judiciary itself (i.e., chief justice of India and the chief justice of the

high court). This provision curtails the absolute discretion of the

executive as well as ensures that the judicial appointments are not

based on any political or practical considerations.

2. Security of Tenure

The judges of a high court are provided with the security of tenure.

They can be removed from office by the president only in the

manner and on the grounds mentioned in the Constitution. This

means that they do not hold their office during the pleasure of the

president, though they are appointed by him. This is obvious from

the fact that no judge of a high court has been removed (or

impeached) so far.

3. Fixed Service Conditions

The salaries, allowances, privileges, leave and pension of the

judges of a high court are determined from time to time by the

Parliament. But, they cannot be changed to their disadvantage

after their appointment except during a financial emergency. Thus,

the conditions of service of the judges of a high court remain

The salaries and allowances of the judges, the salaries,

allowances and pensions of the staff as well as the administrative

expenses of a high court are charged on the consolidated fund of

the state. Thus, they are non-votable by the state legislature

(though they can be discussed by it). It should be noted here that

the pension of a high court judge is charged on the Consolidated

Fund of India and not the state.

5. Conduct of Judges cannot be Discussed

The Constitution prohibits any discussion in Parliament or in a

state legislature with respect to the conduct of the judges of a high

court in the discharge of their duties, except when an

impeachment motion is under consideration of the Parliament.

6. Ban on Practice after Retirement

The retired permanent judges of a high court are prohibited from

pleading or acting in any court or before any authority in India