Law Maker

PART VI THE STATES · CHAPTER V.— THE HIGH COURTS IN THE STATES

Article 227: Power of superintendence over all courts by the High Court

The Constitution of India

1[(1) Every High Court shall have superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction.]

(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provision, the High Court may—

(a) call for returns from such courts;

(b) make and issue general rules and prescribe forms for regulating the practice and proceedings of such courts; and

(c) prescribe forms in which books, entries and accounts shall be kept by the officers of any such courts. (3) The High Court may also settle tables of fees to be allowed to the sheriff and all clerks and officers of such courts and to attorneys, advocates and pleaders practising therein:

Provided that any rules made, forms prescribed or tables settled under clause (2) or clause (3) shall not be inconsistent with the provision of any law for the time being in force, and shall require the previous approval of the Governor.

(4) Nothing in this article shall be deemed to confer on a High Court power of superintendence over any court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the Armed Forces.

2(5)***********

Footnotes in the official text

  1. 1.Subs. by the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976, s. 40, for cl. (1) (w.e.f. 1-2-1977) and further subs. by the Constitution (Forty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1978, s. 31, for cl. (1) (w.e.f. 20-6- 1979).
  2. 2.Cl. (5) was ins. by the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976, s. 40 (w.e.f. 1-2-1977) and omitted by the Constitution (Forty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1978, s. 31 (w.e.f. 20-6-1979).

Leading cases

Questions on this article

17 questions in 35 of our papers cite Article 227. Try these from the free papers:

  1. 1. Consider the following statements regarding Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu (1992): 1. Paragraph 7 of the Tenth Schedule was held invalid for want of ratification under the proviso to Article 368(2). 2. Because Paragraph 7 was not ratified, the whole of the Constitution (Fifty-second Amendment) Act, 1985 was held invalid. 3. The Speaker or Chairman, while deciding questions of disqualification under the Tenth Schedule, acts as a tribunal whose decisions are amenable to judicial review. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

  2. 2. In Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath (2015), a three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court considered how judicial orders of civil courts may be challenged before the High Court. It held that:

  3. 3. According to L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997), decisions of tribunals created under Articles 323A and 323B are subject to scrutiny before:

Practise questions on Constitutional Law