Consider the following statements: 1. The mode of removal of a Judge of a High Court in India is same as that of removal of a Judge of the Supreme Court. 2. After retirement from the office, a permanent Judge of a High Court cannot plead or act in any court or before any authority in India. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

1. The Integrated Judicial System of India (basic)

Welcome! To understand how a judge is removed, we must first understand the structure they inhabit. In India, we have a Dual Polity (a Central government and State governments), but we do not have a dual system of justice. Instead, the Constitution establishes an Integrated Judicial System. Imagine a single pyramid: the Supreme Court stands at the apex, followed by High Courts at the state level, and Subordinate Courts (District and lower courts) at the base. Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), Salient Features of the Constitution, p.30

The most unique feature of this integration is that this single system of courts enforces both Central laws and State laws. This is a sharp departure from the federal model used in the USA, where federal laws are handled by federal courts and state laws by state courts. In India, whether you are dealing with a central law like the Income Tax Act or a state law regarding land revenue, the same hierarchy of courts will hear the matter. This structure was designed to ensure uniformity in justice and eliminate diversities in remedial procedures across the country. Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), Centre-State Relations, p.151

While the High Court is the highest judicial authority within a State, it is not an independent silo. It operates below the Supreme Court and above the subordinate courts. Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), High Court, p.353 This integration is also reflected in the administration: High Court judges are appointed, transferred, and removed by the President (a central authority), which ensures that the judiciary remains a cohesive national unit rather than just a state-level service. Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), Centre-State Relations, p.151

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

Sources: Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), Salient Features of the Constitution, p.30; Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), Centre-State Relations, p.151; Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), High Court, p.353; Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), Subordinate Courts, p.363

2. Independence of the Judiciary: Constitutional Safeguards (intermediate)

To ensure that justice is delivered without 'fear or favour,' the Indian Constitution meticulously insulates the High Courts from executive and legislative interference. This independence isn't just a legal formality; it is a structural necessity for the Rule of Law. The first pillar of this independence is Security of Tenure. Unlike civil servants who may serve at the pleasure of the executive, a High Court judge can only be removed by the President following a rigorous process in Parliament, identical to that of a Supreme Court judge, based strictly on 'proved misbehaviour' or 'incapacity' Introduction to the Constitution of India, THE HIGH COURT, p.361. Another critical safeguard is Financial Independence. The salaries and allowances of High Court judges are charged on the Consolidated Fund of the State, meaning they are not subject to the annual vote of the State Legislature. However, a unique constitutional nuance exists regarding their pensions: while their salaries come from the State, their pensions are charged on the Consolidated Fund of India Introduction to the Constitution of India, The Union Legislature, p.258. This ensures that no state government can use the promise or threat of pension adjustments to influence a sitting judge. Finally, the Constitution imposes a Restriction on Practice after retirement. A permanent High Court judge is prohibited from pleading or acting in any court or before any authority in India except the Supreme Court and other High Courts Indian Polity, High Court, p.357. This prevents retired judges from appearing in the very courts where they once presided, maintaining the dignity and impartiality of the judicial office.

Feature	Constitutional Safeguard
Appointment	Made by the President in consultation with the Judiciary (Collegium) Indian Polity, High Court, p.356.
Conduct	Cannot be discussed in Parliament or State Legislature (except during removal).
Expenses	Salaries/Allowances (State Fund); Pensions (Union Fund).

Sources: Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), Chapter 34: High Court, p.356-357; Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.), THE HIGH COURT, p.361; Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.), The Union Legislature, p.258

3. Writ Jurisdiction: Comparing Article 32 and Article 226 (intermediate)

In our journey through the Indian judiciary, understanding how citizens protect their rights is crucial. The Constitution provides two primary "emergency exits" when rights are violated: Article 32 (for the Supreme Court) and Article 226 (for the High Courts). While they might look similar, they differ significantly in their scope and nature.

Under Article 32, the Supreme Court can issue writs only for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights. Because Article 32 is itself a Fundamental Right, the Supreme Court is duty-bound to protect these rights and cannot refuse to entertain a petition. This makes the Supreme Court the "guarantor and defender" of our basic liberties Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth, Fundamental Rights, p.99. Conversely, Article 226 empowers High Courts to issue writs not only for Fundamental Rights but also for "any other purpose"—meaning ordinary legal rights. This leads to a famous constitutional paradox: the High Court's writ jurisdiction is actually wider than that of the Supreme Court Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth, Supreme Court, p.291.

Another key distinction lies in the discretionary nature of these powers. Since Article 32 is a Fundamental Right, the remedy is a matter of right. However, the remedy under Article 226 is discretionary; a High Court may refuse to exercise its writ jurisdiction if it believes an alternative, effective legal remedy exists Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth, Fundamental Rights, p.99. Furthermore, their territorial reach differs: the Supreme Court’s writ power extends throughout the entire territory of India, whereas a High Court’s power is generally limited to its own state or where the "cause of action" arises Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu, THE SUPREME COURT, p.348.

Feature	Article 32 (Supreme Court)	Article 226 (High Court)
Purpose	Only Fundamental Rights	FRs + Ordinary Legal Rights
Nature	A Fundamental Right (Mandatory)	Discretionary Power
Territorial Scope	Whole of India	Respective State/Territory

Sources: Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth, Fundamental Rights, p.99; Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth, Supreme Court, p.291; Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu, THE SUPREME COURT, p.348

4. The Subordinate Judiciary and High Court Control (basic)

In the Indian judicial architecture, the High Court stands as the head of the state's judicial administration. To ensure the independence of the judiciary at the grassroots level, the Constitution places the "Subordinate Courts" (District Courts and below) under the administrative umbrella of the High Court rather than the executive government. This relationship is defined primarily through Articles 233 to 237 in Part VI of the Constitution M. Laxmikanth, Indian Polity, Subordinate Courts, p.363.

The High Court’s control is both judicial and administrative. Under Article 227, every High Court has the power of superintendence over all courts and tribunals within its territorial jurisdiction (excluding military tribunals) D. D. Basu, Introduction to the Constitution of India, THE HIGH COURT, p.368. Furthermore, Article 235 vests the High Court with complete administrative control over the judicial service of the state. This includes:

• Postings and Promotions: The High Court manages the career progression of judicial officers.
• Disciplinary Control: It can initiate inquiries, suspend, or punish persons belonging to the judicial service.
• Leave and Transfers: The day-to-day administration of these officers is handled by the High Court to prevent executive interference.

When it comes to the appointment of District Judges, the Governor makes the appointments, but only in consultation with the High Court. For recruitment to the judicial service below the rank of District Judge, the Governor consults both the High Court and the State Public Service Commission D. D. Basu, Introduction to the Constitution of India, THE HIGH COURT, p.367. To be eligible for a District Judge position, a person must have been an advocate for at least seven years and be recommended by the High Court M. Laxmikanth, Indian Polity, Subordinate Courts, p.363.

Finally, the High Court judges themselves are protected to ensure they can exercise this control fearlessly. A High Court judge can only be removed by the President following a special majority in Parliament—the exact same rigorous process used for Supreme Court judges M. Laxmikanth, Indian Polity, High Court, p.355. To maintain integrity, a retired permanent High Court judge is prohibited from practicing in any court or authority in India except the Supreme Court and other High Courts M. Laxmikanth, Indian Polity, High Court, p.357.

Sources: Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), Chapter 35: Subordinate Courts, p.363; Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.), THE HIGH COURT, p.367-368; Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), Chapter 34: High Court, p.355, 357

5. Removal of Judges: Parity between SC and HC (exam-level)

In the Indian constitutional framework, the independence of the higher judiciary is protected by ensuring that High Court (HC) judges enjoy the same security of tenure as Supreme Court (SC) judges. This is achieved through Article 218, which acts as a bridge, explicitly stating that certain provisions relating to the Supreme Court (specifically Article 124, clauses 4 and 5) apply to the High Courts as well. Consequently, a High Court judge cannot be removed at the whims of the Executive or the State Government; they can only be removed by an order of the President. M. Laxmikanth, Indian Polity, Chapter 34, p.355 The parity between the two levels of the higher judiciary is absolute regarding the grounds and the manner of removal. There are only two constitutionally recognized grounds for removal: 'Proved misbehaviour' or 'Incapacity'. As noted by legal experts, 'misbehaviour' implies more than just a simple error of judgment; it involves a degree of mens rea or wrongful conduct. D. D. Basu, Introduction to the Constitution of India, THE SUPREME COURT, p.342. The procedure for this removal is not detailed in the Constitution itself but is regulated by the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, which applies identically to both SC and HC judges.

Feature	Supreme Court Judge	High Court Judge
Removing Authority	President of India	President of India
Grounds	Proved misbehaviour or incapacity	Proved misbehaviour or incapacity
Process	Special Majority in both Houses	Special Majority in both Houses
Governing Act	Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968	Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968

It is a common point of confusion for students to assume that because a High Court is situated within a State, the Governor might have a role in the removal process. However, while the Governor is consulted during appointment and administers the oath, they have zero authority in the removal process. This centralisation of removal power ensures that judges remain insulated from local political pressures. M. Laxmikanth, Indian Polity, High Court, p.362

Sources: Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), Chapter 34: High Court, p.355, 362; Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.), THE SUPREME COURT, p.342

6. Post-Retirement Restrictions: Article 124(7) vs Article 220 (exam-level)

To ensure the independence and impartiality of the judiciary, the Constitution of India imposes certain restrictions on the post-retirement professional lives of judges. The logic is simple: a judge should not be tempted to decide cases in a way that favors a future client or an authority before whom they might practice after retirement. This 'cooling-off' logic is enshrined in two distinct articles for the Supreme Court and the High Courts. While the grounds for their removal are identical (special majority in Parliament for proved misbehaviour or incapacity), their post-retirement practice rights differ significantly M. Laxmikanth, Indian Polity, Chapter 34, p. 355. Article 124(7) deals with Supreme Court judges. It imposes an absolute bar on practice. Once a person has held office as a judge of the Supreme Court, they cannot plead or act in any court or before any authority within the territory of India D. D. Basu, Introduction to the Constitution of India, THE SUPREME COURT, p. 344. This is because the Supreme Court is the apex body; allowing a retired SC judge to practice anywhere else would likely overawe the presiding judge and undermine the dignity of the highest judicial office. In contrast, Article 220 provides a partial restriction for High Court judges. A retired permanent judge of a High Court is prohibited from practicing in the same High Court where they served or in any court/authority subordinate to it. However, they are permitted to practice in the Supreme Court and in other High Courts where they have not served as a permanent judge M. Laxmikanth, Indian Polity, Chapter 34, p. 357. This distinction recognizes that while we must prevent a judge from influencing their former colleagues or subordinates, their legal expertise can still be valuable in other jurisdictions.

Feature	Supreme Court (Art. 124(7))	High Court (Art. 220)
Scope of Restriction	Absolute/Total ban.	Partial ban.
Where can they practice?	Nowhere in India.	Only in the SC and other HCs.
Rationale	Maintain the majesty of the apex court.	Prevent conflict of interest in the home court.

Sources: Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), Chapter 34: High Court, p.355, 357; Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.), THE SUPREME COURT, p.344

7. Solving the Original PYQ (exam-level)

This question integrates your understanding of the independence of the judiciary and the constitutional protections afforded to High Court judges. When studying the removal process, you learned that to ensure impartiality, the Constitution places High Court judges on the same pedestal as Supreme Court judges. This means the grounds (proved misbehaviour or incapacity) and the procedure (special majority in both Houses) are identical, ensuring that a Judge cannot be removed at the whim of the executive. This aligns with the building blocks of security of tenure discussed in Indian Polity by M. Laxmikanth.

To arrive at the correct answer, you must evaluate the specific limitations placed on judges after they leave office. While Statement 1 is correct because the removal mechanism is indeed shared, Statement 2 contains a common UPSC trap involving absolute qualifiers. A retired permanent High Court judge is prohibited from practicing in the same High Court or courts subordinate to it; however, they remain eligible to plead or act in the Supreme Court and other High Courts. Therefore, the statement that they cannot act in any court or authority is factually inaccurate.

Consequently, options (B) and (C) are incorrect because they rely on the false premise of an absolute bar on practice. UPSC often tests your ability to distinguish between the absolute restriction placed on Supreme Court judges (who cannot practice anywhere) and the partial restriction for High Court judges. By recognizing this nuance, you can confidently identify (A) 1 only as the correct choice and avoid the over-generalization trap that many aspirants fall into.