The Constitution of India
Article 229
Officers and servants and the expenses of High Courts
(1) Appointments of officers and servants of a High Court shall be made by the Chief Justice of the Court or such other Judge or officer of the Court as he may direct:
Provided that the Governor of the State may by rule require that in such cases as may be specified in the rule no person not already attached to the Court shall be appointed to any office connected with the Court save after consultation with the State Public Service Commission.
(2) Subject to the provisions of any law made by the Legislature of the State, the conditions of service of officers and servants of a High Court shall be such as may be prescribed by rules made by the Chief Justice of the Court or by some other Judge or officer of the Court authorised by the Chief Justice to make rules for the purpose:
Provided that the rules made under this clause shall, so far as they relate to salaries, allowances, leave or pensions, require the approval of the Governor of the State.
(3) The administrative expenses of a High Court, including all salaries, allowances and pensions payable to or in respect of the officers and servants of the Court, shall be charged upon the Consolidated Fund of the State, and any fees or other moneys taken by the Court shall form part of that Fund.
Why this exists
The framers wanted High Courts to be independent not just in judicial decisions but also in running their own administration, so that judges wouldn't have to depend on the executive for hiring staff or funding daily operations. By charging expenses directly on the Consolidated Fund rather than requiring yearly legislative approval, the Constitution insulates the judiciary's basic functioning from budgetary pressure or political bargaining, while still keeping a light check through the Governor's role in salary/pension-related rules and Public Service Commission consultation.
How courts read it
Courts have generally read Article 229 as reinforcing judicial independence in administrative matters, treating the Chief Justice's control over court staff as parallel to the Supreme Court's own staffing power under Article 146. Judgments on service disputes involving High Court staff have emphasized that while the Chief Justice's rule-making is supreme in day-to-day administration, it operates 'subject to' state legislation and, for financial terms, subject to Governor's approval — meaning the article balances judicial autonomy with legislative and executive oversight rather than granting unchecked power.
Common misconceptions
- Myth: The State Government hires and fires High Court staff.
Fact: Under Article 229(1), it is the Chief Justice (or a judge/officer they authorise) who makes these appointments, not the state executive. - Myth: The Governor can freely control all High Court staff appointments and rules.
Fact: The Governor's role is limited: requiring Public Service Commission consultation for specified outside appointments, and approving only rules on salaries, allowances, leave, or pensions — not general administrative control. - Myth: The High Court must ask the legislature every year for money to pay its staff.
Fact: Article 229(3) charges these expenses directly on the Consolidated Fund of the State, so they are paid without needing annual legislative voting.