Article 225 of the Costitution of India with Case law
Article 225 of the Constitution of India
Title: Jurisdiction of existing High Courts
Text of Article 225:
"Subject to the provisions of this Constitution and to the provisions of any law of the appropriate Legislature made by virtue of powers conferred on that Legislature by this Constitution, the jurisdiction of, and the law administered in, any existing High Court, and the respective powers of judges thereof in relation to the administration of justice in the Court, including any power to make rules of court and to regulate the sittings of the Court and of members thereof sitting alone or in Division Courts, shall be the same as immediately before the commencement of this Constitution:
Provided that any restriction which immediately before the commencement of this Constitution existed on the exercise of original jurisdiction by any of the High Courts with respect to any matter concerning the revenue, or concerning any act ordered or done in the collection thereof, shall no longer apply."
Explanation and Key Features:
Continuity of Jurisdiction:
The jurisdiction of existing High Courts (those that existed before the commencement of the Constitution) remains intact unless modified by the Constitution or law made by the appropriate legislature.
Judicial Powers:
The powers of High Court judges and their ability to make rules and manage court procedures are preserved.
Revenue Matters:
The proviso removes pre-Constitutional restrictions on High Courts in dealing with revenue-related cases. That is, now High Courts can entertain original jurisdiction over revenue matters that were previously barred.
Important Case Laws Related to Article 225:
⚖ Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra
AIR 1967 SC 1 | (1966) 3 SCR 744
The Supreme Court emphasized that High Courts have inherent powers in relation to administration of justice, preserved by Article 225.
The Court upheld that judicial powers and jurisdiction of High Courts pre-1950 are not diminished, unless specifically altered by constitutional or statutory provisions.
⚖ State of Uttar Pradesh v. Dr. Vijay Anand Maharaj
AIR 1963 SC 946
This case recognized the wide jurisdiction of High Courts, particularly in relation to writ jurisdiction and original civil jurisdiction, preserved through Articles 225 and 226.
Reaffirmed that post-Constitution, High Courts are not limited by older procedural bars (like revenue case restrictions).
⚖ T. V. Vatheeswaran v. State of Tamil Nadu
AIR 1983 SC 361
Reiterated that High Courts derive their powers from both the Constitution (Art. 225 & 226) and existing statutory provisions.
These provisions ensure judicial independence and procedural autonomy of the High Courts.
⚖ Union of India v. Sankalchand Himatlal Sheth
AIR 1977 SC 2328
The case discussed transfer of High Court judges and indirectly touched on Article 225 to highlight how jurisdictional independence and authority of High Courts are rooted in constitutional protection.
Conclusion:
Article 225 serves as a transitional and protective provision that:
Preserves the jurisdiction, laws, and practices of High Courts as they existed before the Constitution.
Ensures continuity in judicial functioning.
Removes previous restrictions on revenue matters, thereby expanding the High Courts’ original jurisdiction.
It underlines the principle that High Courts are constitutional courts with both inherited and evolving powers, unless modified by specific constitutional or legislative intervention.
RELATED Blog
0 comments