The Judge of the High Courts in India is administered oath of office by :

1. Structure and Hierarchy of the Indian Judiciary (basic)

Welcome to your first step in understanding the world of High Court judges! To understand the judge, we must first understand the "house" they work in. India follows what we call an Integrated Judicial System. Think of it as a single, unified pyramid rather than a collection of separate silos. Unlike the United States, where there is a "double system" of courts (federal courts for federal laws and state courts for state laws), India has a single system of courts that enforces both Central and State laws Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), Chapter 13, p.140.

At the very top of this pyramid sits the Supreme Court of India, which acts as the ultimate guarantor of fundamental rights and the guardian of the Constitution. Directly below the Supreme Court are the High Courts. While a High Court is the highest judicial authority within a specific State, it does not operate in isolation; it is part of the national hierarchy and is subject to the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), Chapter 3, p.30.

Moving further down the hierarchy, we find the Subordinate Courts (also known as Lower Courts). These include District Courts and other lower-level judicial bodies. They are called "subordinate" specifically because they function under the superintendence and control of their respective High Courts Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), Chapter 35, p.363. This structure ensures uniformity in the administration of justice across the country, regardless of whether the law being applied was passed by Parliament or a State Legislature.

Feature	Indian Judicial System	American Judicial System
Structure	Integrated (Single Pyramid)	Double System (Dual Hierarchy)
Law Enforcement	Single system enforces both Central & State laws	Federal courts for Federal laws; State courts for State laws

Historically, this institution isn't new. The modern High Court system in India dates back to 1862, when the first High Courts were established in Calcutta, Bombay, and Madras. Today, the High Court stands as the "top position" in the judicial administration of a state, serving as a vital bridge between the local subordinate courts and the national Supreme Court Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), Chapter 34, p.353.

Sources: Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), Chapter 13: Federal System, p.140; Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), Chapter 3: Salient Features of the Constitution, p.30; Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), Chapter 34: High Court, p.353; Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), Chapter 35: Subordinate Courts, p.363

2. Organization and Composition of High Courts (basic)

When we look at the organization of a High Court, the first thing to understand is that it is not a rigid structure. Every High Court in India consists of a Chief Justice and such other judges as the President may from time to time deem necessary to appoint. Unlike the Supreme Court, where the maximum number of judges is fixed by Parliament, the Constitution does not specify a fixed strength for High Courts. Instead, it leaves this to the discretion of the President, who determines the number of judges based on the specific workload of each state's court Laxmikanth, M. Indian Polity, Chapter 34, p.353.

To better understand the difference in how these two higher courts are structured, consider this comparison:

Feature	Supreme Court	High Court
Strength Fixed By	Parliament (through legislation)	The President (Executive discretion)
Current Logic	Fixed at 34 (including CJI) Laxmikanth, M. Indian Polity, Chapter 26, p.285	Varies from state to state based on pendency of cases

Once a judge is appointed by the President, they cannot simply walk into the courtroom and start presiding. There is a constitutional bridge they must cross: the Oath or Affirmation. According to Article 219, every person appointed to be a judge of a High Court must subscribe to an oath before the Governor of the State (or someone appointed by the Governor for this purpose) Laxmikanth, M. Indian Polity, Chapter 34, p.354. Even though the President is the appointing authority, the Governor witnesses the induction, emphasizing the High Court's role as the head of the state's judicial administration.

In this oath, the judge swears to uphold the sovereignty and integrity of India—a phrase added to the oath by the 16th Constitutional Amendment Act of 1963 to ensure national unity D. D. Basu, Introduction to the Constitution of India, Tables, p.512. They also promise to perform their duties "without fear or favour, affection or ill-will," which is the cornerstone of judicial independence.

Sources: Laxmikanth, M. Indian Polity, Chapter 34: High Court, p.353-354; Laxmikanth, M. Indian Polity, Chapter 26: Supreme Court, p.285; D. D. Basu, Introduction to the Constitution of India, Tables, p.512

3. The Appointment Process: President and the Collegium (intermediate)

In the Indian constitutional framework, the independence of the judiciary is carefully balanced with a rigorous appointment process. The President of India is the formal appointing authority for every High Court judge. However, the President does not act in isolation; the process is governed by a mandatory 'consultation' mechanism to ensure only the most qualified individuals reach the bench.

The specific players involved in this consultation depend on the nature of the vacancy:

Position to be Filled	Who the President Consults
Chief Justice of a High Court	1. Chief Justice of India (CJI) 2. Governor of the State concerned
Other Judges of a High Court	1. Chief Justice of India (CJI) 2. Governor of the State concerned 3. Chief Justice of that specific High Court

It is crucial to note that if a High Court serves two or more states (a common High Court), the President must consult the Governors of all the states involved Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth, Chapter 34, p. 354. While the text of the Constitution uses the word "consultation," the Supreme Court ruled in the Second Judges Case (1993) that no appointment can be made unless it is in conformity with the opinion of the CJI. This effectively turned consultation into concurrence, cementing the role of the Collegium system Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth, Chapter 34, p. 354.

Finally, there is a distinct procedural step often confused in exams: the Oath of Office. While the President appoints the judge, the responsibility for administering the oath under Article 219 rests with the Governor of the State (or a person appointed by them). This ceremony acts as the formal induction of the judge into the state's judicial system, where they swear to bear true faith to the Constitution and uphold the sovereignty of India Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth, Chapter 34, p. 354.

Sources: Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), Chapter 34: High Court, p.354; Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), Chapter 30: Governor, p.318

4. Independence of Judiciary: Removal and Transfer (intermediate)

The independence of the High Court is protected by making the removal of a judge an intentionally difficult process, shielding them from political whims. A High Court judge can only be removed by an order of the President, but only after an address by the Parliament has been presented in the same session Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth, Chapter 34, p.355. This address must be supported by a special majority in both Houses: a majority of the total membership of the House AND a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members present and voting. Crucially, there are only two constitutional grounds for removal: proved misbehaviour or incapacity Indian Constitution at Work, NCERT Class XI, Judiciary, p.128. This ensures that a judge can only be ousted for professional or physical failings, not for delivering judgments that the government dislikes.

While the Constitution provides the framework, the Judges Enquiry Act (1968) details the actual procedure. The process is rigorous: a motion must be signed by at least 100 members in the Lok Sabha or 50 in the Rajya Sabha before the Speaker or Chairman even considers admitting it. If admitted, a three-member committee (comprising a Supreme Court judge, a High Court Chief Justice, and a distinguished jurist) investigates the charges Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth, Chapter 34, p.355. If the committee finds the judge guilty, only then can the Parliament vote on the removal motion.

The transfer of judges (Article 222) is another sensitive area for judicial independence. To prevent transfers from being used as a tool of punishment or harassment by the executive, the Supreme Court has established strict safeguards. In the Third Judges Case (1998), it was clarified that the Chief Justice of India (CJI) must consult a collegium of four senior-most judges of the Supreme Court, as well as the Chief Justices of both the High Courts involved (the one the judge is leaving and the one they are joining) Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth, Chapter 34, p.356. Furthermore, the 1994 ruling established that transfers are subject to judicial review to ensure they are made in the "public interest" and not as a punitive measure.

Sources: Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), Chapter 34: High Court, p.355-356; Indian Constitution at Work, Political Science Class XI (NCERT 2025 ed.), JUDICIARY, p.128

5. Powers and Jurisdiction of High Courts (intermediate)

To understand how the High Court functions, we must first look at the moment a judge takes office and the immense legal 'tools' they wield to protect our rights. Before a High Court judge can exercise any power, Article 219 of the Constitution requires them to take an oath or affirmation. While the President appoints these judges, the oath is administered by the Governor of the State (or a person appointed by them). This is a beautiful example of our federal structure—the national head appoints, but the state head witnesses the promise to perform duties 'without fear or favour, affection or ill-will' Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth, Chapter 34, p.354. Once in office, the High Court's most potent power is its Writ Jurisdiction under Article 226. A 'writ' is essentially a formal written order issued by the court to an authority or individual. While both the Supreme Court and High Courts can issue these, the High Court's power is paradoxically wider in scope. This is because the Supreme Court can only issue writs to protect Fundamental Rights, whereas the High Court can issue them for Fundamental Rights and 'for any other purpose'—meaning the enforcement of ordinary legal rights Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth, Chapter 34, p.358.

Feature	Supreme Court (Article 32)	High Court (Article 226)
Purpose	Only for Fundamental Rights.	Fundamental Rights AND Ordinary Legal Rights.
Territorial Scope	Throughout India.	Within the State (or where the cause of action arises).
Nature of Power	It is a Fundamental Right itself; SC cannot refuse.	Discretionary power; HC may refuse to exercise it.

Historically, before 1950, only the High Courts of Calcutta, Bombay, and Madras held this power, but today it is a Basic Structure of our Constitution, meaning Parliament cannot take this power away even through an amendment Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth, Chapter 34, p.358.

Sources: Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth, Chapter 34: High Court, p.354; Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth, Chapter 34: High Court, p.358

6. The Oath of Office and Service Conditions (exam-level)

In the life of a High Court judge, the transition from being 'appointed' to 'entering office' is marked by a vital constitutional ritual: the Oath or Affirmation. Under Article 219 of the Constitution, every person appointed as a judge must subscribe to this oath before they can legally exercise their judicial powers. While the President of India is the authority who appoints them, the oath is administered by the Governor of the State (or a person appointed by the Governor for this purpose). This distinction is a classic example of the cooperative federalism inherent in our judiciary—the Union appoints, but the State executive witnesses the induction Laxmikanth, M. Indian Polity, Chapter 34, p.354.

The substance of the oath is profound and covers four specific commitments. The judge swears to: (1) bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India; (2) uphold the sovereignty and integrity of India; (3) perform duties without fear or favour, affection or ill-will; and (4) uphold the Constitution and the laws Laxmikanth, M. Indian Polity, Chapter 34, p.354. The phrase "without fear or favour" is the bedrock of judicial independence, ensuring that judges remain neutral arbiters regardless of political or personal pressure.

Beyond the oath, Article 221 governs the Service Conditions of High Court judges. Their salaries, allowances, leave, and pensions are determined by Parliament. To ensure their independence, these conditions cannot be varied to their disadvantage after appointment, except during a Financial Emergency. An important nuance for your exams is the source of these payments: while their salaries and allowances are charged on the Consolidated Fund of the State, their pension is charged on the Consolidated Fund of India. This ensures that even after retirement, a judge is not beholden to a specific state government for their livelihood.

Feature	Authority / Source	Article
Oath Administered by	Governor of the State	Article 219
Salary Charged on	Consolidated Fund of the State	Article 221
Pension Charged on	Consolidated Fund of India	Article 221

Sources: Laxmikanth, M. Indian Polity, Chapter 34: High Court, p.354; Laxmikanth, M. Indian Polity, Chapter 92: World Constitutions, p.701

7. Solving the Original PYQ (exam-level)

In your recent modules, you explored the structural hierarchy of the Indian judiciary and the specific constitutional provisions governing the High Courts. This question tests your ability to distinguish between the appointing authority and the oath-administering authority—a classic distinction in Indian Polity. While the President of India issues the warrant of appointment under Article 217, Article 219 explicitly mandates that the oath of office for a High Court judge be administered by the Governor of the State (or a person appointed by them for this purpose). This highlights the dual nature of our federal system: the High Court is a central subject in terms of appointment and removal, yet it functions as the highest judicial body within the state's jurisdiction, making the Governor the appropriate constitutional witness for the induction ceremony as noted in M. Laxmikanth, Indian Polity.

To arrive at the correct answer, you must avoid the common "centralization trap." UPSC often designs questions where students reflexively choose the President of India (Option C) because they know the President signs the appointment letter. However, the Constitution delegates the ritual of the oath to the Governor to maintain administrative efficiency and recognize the state's constitutional head. Similarly, The Chief Justice of India (Option D) is involved in the consultative process of selection (the Collegium system) but holds no constitutional role in the physical administration of the oath for High Court judges. Even The Chief Justice of the High Court (Option A), despite being the head of that specific court, does not administer the oath to their peers; rather, they themselves must take their oath before the Governor before they can assume office.