Article 235 of the Constitution

A district judge decides cases against the State every day. Now ask one question. Who controls that judge’s posting, promotion and leave? If the government did, the judge could feel pressure. Article 235 gives that control to the High Court. But there is a limit. The High Court cannot fire a District Judge on its own.

1Chapter 1: What Article 235 Gives the High Court

Must Know

The text in plain words

• Control over district courts and the courts below them is vested in the High Court.
• The article names three things: posting, promotion and leave.
• These are for judicial officers in the State’s judicial service who hold posts below that of District Judge.
• The officer keeps any right of appeal under the service rules.
• The High Court cannot deal with the officer outside those rules.

Why it matters

• Control over a judge’s career is control over the judge.
• Keeping it in the High Court, not the government, shields the lower judiciary from executive pressure.
• Because of this, a district judge can rule against the State without fearing a punishment transfer or a stalled promotion.

2Chapter 2: Three Articles, Three Jobs

Must Know

233, 234 and 235 together

• Article 233: the Governor appoints, posts and promotes District Judges, in consultation with the High Court.
• Article 234: recruitment of persons other than District Judges to the judicial service. This also involves the High Court.
• Article 235: once an officer is in service, the High Court controls the service.
• So entry and daily control sit with different hands. The High Court is part of both.
• Read Article 233: Appointment of District Judges.

Two routes onto the district bench

• A person becomes a District Judge by promotion from the subordinate judiciary.
• Or by direct recruitment from the Bar, among advocates with the required standing.
• The two channels blend experience with fresh legal talent.
• Both routes need the High Court’s consultation.
• Once on the bench, the officer’s posting, promotion and leave come under Article 235.

The chain of safeguards

• Articles 233 and 234 fix who joins the bench.
• Article 235 fixes who runs the career.
• Article 311 fixes who can remove the officer.
• Four safeguards, one purpose: an independent district bench.

3Chapter 3: How Far Does “Control” Go?

Good to Know

Nripendra Nath Bagchi (1966)

• In State of West Bengal v. Nripendra Nath Bagchi, the Supreme Court read “control” widely.
• It includes the power of discipline and the steps needed to carry it out.
• For a dismissal, the Governor acts on the High Court’s recommendation.

Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab (1974)

• The Court said the High Court alone controls the subordinate judiciary.
• This includes starting and holding disciplinary inquiries.
• A High Court should not hand such an inquiry to an executive agency.
• That would let the executive steer discipline it was never meant to control.
• The lasting idea: the executive does not run discipline in the lower courts.

Why the Assembly chose the High Court

• Before the Constitution, the executive held wide control over subordinate judges.
• It could reward loyal judgments and punish inconvenient ones.
• The Constituent Assembly moved the control to the High Court to end that.
• Think of a referee who also sets the players’ contracts. The High Court is both an appellate court over the lower judiciary and the authority running its career. The role is unusual, but deliberate.

4Chapter 4: Can a High Court Dismiss a District Judge?

Good to Know

The Chhattisgarh ruling, May 2022

• The Chhattisgarh High Court held that a High Court cannot itself terminate a District Judge or reduce their rank under Article 235.
• That power belongs to the Governor, the appointing authority, under Article 311(1).
• Article 311(1) bars dismissal by an authority lower than the appointing authority.
• The High Court is not the District Judge’s appointing authority. So it cannot lawfully terminate one.

What the High Court still does

• It holds inquiries and recommends the punishment.
• The final order goes out in the Governor’s name.
• The decision comes from the High Court.
• Article 235 and Article 311 define each other’s boundary.
• Read Article 311: Dismissal Safeguards.

5In the News: The Vacancy Story and the Control Debate

Current Affairs

Empty posts in district courts

• District courts carry the largest case load in the country.
• In a Rajya Sabha reply on 4 December 2025, the Law Minister gave the numbers.
• There were 4,855 vacancies against a sanctioned strength of 25,886. That is about 19%.
• PRS Legislative Research reported a vacancy rate of roughly 21% as of 1 December 2025 for Judicial Officer posts.
• Source: PRS Legislative Research.
• Filling these posts is the job of the High Courts and State Governments.
• So the speed of filling them depends on how each High Court uses its recruitment and control powers.

Why the debate returns

• Debates on transfers, postings and discipline in the lower judiciary all trace back to who holds Article 235 “control”.
• Every reform, from e-courts to faster appointment, is really a question of how the High Court uses it.
• See High Courts and Subordinate Courts and Separation of Powers and Judicial Review.

6Previous Year Questions

Exam angle: one real question, and the traps around it.

Quick Q&A

• Who controls posting? High Court.
• Who appoints District Judges? Governor.
• Who dismisses? Governor.
• Discipline case year? 1974.
• Vacancies Dec 2025? 4,855.