A high court’s independence is crucial for the efficient performance of the tasks entrusted to it. It should be free from the intrusions, demands, and interferences of the legislative branch and the executive branch (council of ministers). It ought to be permitted to carry out justice without fear or favor. The following safeguards have been made by the Constitution to protect and guarantee the impartiality and independence of a high court.
- Appointment Method: The chief justice of India and the chief justice of the high court are both members of the judiciary, and the president (the government) appoints the judges of a high court after consulting with both. This clause limits the executive’s whole latitude and guarantees that no practical or political factors will be taken into account when making judicial nominations.
- Tenure Security: The security of tenure is offered to high court justices.
Only in the ways and for the reasons specified in the Constitution can they be removed from office by the president. This means that even if they were appointed by the president, they do not serve at his or her pleasure. This is clear from the fact that no high court judge has ever been fired (or impeached) to date. - Stable Service Terms: The Parliament periodically sets the judges of a high court’s pay, benefits, privileges, leave, and pension. After their appointment, however, they cannot be altered to their detriment unless there is an urgent need for money. As a result, during their terms of office, the high court justices’ conditions of service stay the same.
- Charges to the Consolidated Fund: The state’s consolidated fund is used to pay for the judges’ salaries and benefits, as well as the staff’s salaries, pensions, and benefits, as well as the administrative costs of a high court. The state legislature cannot vote on them, though it can still discuss them. It should be highlighted that the Consolidated Fund of India, not the state, bears the cost of a high court judge’s pension.
- No Discussion of Judges’ Conduct: Except when the Parliament is debating an impeachment resolution, the Constitution forbids criticism of the behavior of high court judges in the course of their responsibilities in either the Parliament or a state legislature.
- Restriction on Practice Following Retirement: With the exception of the Supreme Court and other high courts in India, retired permanent judges of a high court are not permitted to plead or act in any court or before any authority. This guarantees that they do not favor somebody in the hopes of receiving favor in the future.
- The Ability to Punish for Contempt: Any person can be punished by a high court for contempt. Its decisions and acts are hence impervious to criticism and opposition. To preserve its authority, respectability, and honor, a high court is given this jurisdiction.
- Freedom to Choose Staff Members : A high court’s chief justice is free to choose the officers and staff members of the court without intervention from the executive. He may also impose the terms of their employment.
- Its Authority cannot be Restricted: Insofar as they are outlined in the Constitution, a high court’s authority and jurisdiction cannot be restricted by both the federal government and a state legislature. However, the parliament and the state legislature have the capacity to alter the high court’s authority in different ways.
- Being removed from the Executive: The state must take action, according to the Constitution, to keep the executive and judicial branches apart in public administration. This implies that the judicial powers shouldn’t be in the hands of the executive. Following its adoption, executive authorities’ involvement in court administration came to an end.