Article 215

The framers borrowed the concept of a 'court of record' from English common law, where such courts had special dignity: their records were treated as conclusive proof of what happened, and they had inherent authority to protect their own authority and functioning through contempt powers. By placing this in the Constitution itself, the framers ensured High Courts have this status and power as a matter of constitutional right, not just ordinary law — so no ordinary statute can take it away.

The Supreme Court has held that the contempt power under Article 215 is a constitutional, inherent power that exists independently of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 — Parliament's law can regulate procedure but cannot abolish or curtail this constitutional power (as discussed in cases like Sukhdev Singh Sodhi v. Chief Justice and T. Sudhakar Prasad v. Govt. of A.P.). Courts have also clarified that being a 'court of record' means a High Court's orders cannot be questioned in a collateral proceeding before a subordinate court; only a higher court can review them.

• Myth: The High Court's contempt power comes only from the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, so Parliament could remove it by changing that law.
  Fact: Courts have held that Article 215 gives High Courts an inherent constitutional power to punish contempt, which exists independently of the 1971 Act; Parliament can regulate procedure but cannot take away this constitutional power.
• Myth: 'Court of record' just means the court keeps paperwork.
  Fact: It has a specific legal meaning: the court's proceedings and judgments are presumed correct and cannot be questioned in a lower or collateral proceeding, and the court has special inherent powers, including contempt powers, that come with this status.