Polity Set 142 | MROY Class

Polity Set 142 Questions & Answers

The “Doctrine of Pith and Substance” is applied by the courts primarily to determine: – The true nature and character of a law when deciding legislative competence between Centre and States
The “Doctrine of Colorable Legislation” is based on the Latin maxim ‘Quando aliquid prohibetur ex directo, prohibetur et per obliquum’, which means: – What cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly
The “Doctrine of Eclipse” applies primarily to pre-constitutional laws that violate Fundamental Rights. It means that such laws are: – Not dead, but remain dormant/overshadowed by the Fundamental Right and can become active again if the right is amended
The “Doctrine of Severability” dictates that: – If an unconstitutional provision can be separated from a valid law, only the offensive provision is declared void while the rest remains valid
In which landmark case did the Supreme Court explicitly rule that “Federalism” is an essential feature of the Basic Structure of the Constitution? – S.R. Bommai case (1994)
The landmark judgment Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018) decriminalized consensual adult homosexual relationships by striking down parts of which Section of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)? – Section 377
The Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2018) judgment struck down which colonial-era Section of the IPC that criminalized adultery? – Section 497
In Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015), the Supreme Court struck down which provision of the Information Technology Act, 2000, as unconstitutional for violating online free speech? – Section 66A
The landmark Lily Thomas v. Union of India (2013) judgment ruled that sitting MPs and MLAs convicted of crimes attracting a prison sentence of two years or more: – Are disqualified immediately from the date of conviction
Which Article governs the appointment of an Acting Chief Justice of a High Court when the office falls vacant? – Article 223
Under Article 224, the President can appoint qualified persons as Additional Judges of a High Court for a temporary period not exceeding: – 2 years
Does the power of superintendence granted to High Courts over all courts and tribunals under Article 227 include Armed Forces Tribunals (Courts Martial)? – No, military courts and tribunals are explicitly excluded
Under Article 233, District Judges in a State are appointed, posted, and promoted by the Governor in consultation with the: – High Court of that State
Under Article 234, appointments of persons other than district judges to the judicial service of a State are made by the Governor in accordance with rules made after consultation with: – The State Public Service Commission and the High Court
The administrative expenses of a High Court, including all salaries, allowances, and pensions payable to its officers and servants, are charged on the: – Consolidated Fund of the State
While the salaries and allowances of sitting High Court Judges are charged on the Consolidated Fund of the State, their pensions are charged on the: – Consolidated Fund of India
Who is empowered to extend the jurisdiction of a High Court to any Union Territory or exclude a UT from its jurisdiction? – The Parliament by law
Which High Court has territorial jurisdiction over the State of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram, and Arunachal Pradesh? – Gauhati High Court
In which year were separate, full-fledged High Courts established for Meghalaya, Manipur, and Tripura? – 2013
In January 2019, the 25th High Court in India was inaugurated at Amaravati for which state? – Andhra Pradesh
Which Article authorizes the Governor to reserve a bill passed by the State Legislature for the consideration of the President? – Article 200
When a bill reserved by the Governor for the consideration of the President is sent back by the President for reconsideration and is passed again by the State Assembly, is the President bound to give assent? – No, the President is NOT bound to give assent even if passed again by the state legislature
Which Article provides for the appointment of the Advocate General for a State? – Article 165
The Advocate General of a State holds office: – During the pleasure of the Governor
Does the Advocate General of a State have the right to speak and take part in the proceedings of the State Legislature? – Yes, but without the right to vote
The State Council of Ministers is collectively responsible to the: – Legislative Assembly (Vidhan Sabha)
Which Article states that all executive action of the Government of a State shall be expressed to be taken in the name of the Governor? – Article 166
Which Article defines the duties of the Chief Minister respecting the furnishing of information to the Governor? – Article 167
The maximum strength of a State Legislative Assembly is fixed by the Constitution at 500, and its general minimum strength is fixed at: – 60
What is the maximum permitted strength of a State Legislative Council (Vidhan Parishad)? – One-third of the total strength of the State Legislative Assembly

MROY Class

Polity Set 142

Q: The "Doctrine of Colorable Legislation" is based on the Latin maxim 'Quando aliquid prohibetur ex directo, prohibetur et per obliquum', which means:

What cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly.

Q: The landmark Lily Thomas v. Union of India (2013) judgment ruled that sitting MPs and MLAs convicted of crimes attracting a prison sentence of two years or more:

Are disqualified immediately from the date of conviction.

Q: Does the power of superintendence granted to High Courts over all courts and tribunals under Article 227 include Armed Forces Tribunals (Courts Martial)?

No, military courts and tribunals are explicitly excluded.

Q: Under Article 234, appointments of persons other than district judges to the judicial service of a State are made by the Governor in accordance with rules made after consultation with:

The State Public Service Commission and the High Court.

🔍

📌 Constitutional Doctrines

Q.1) The “Doctrine of Pith and Substance” is applied by the courts primarily to determine:

Ans > The true nature and character of a law when deciding legislative competence between Centre and States

Origin in Canadian Jurisprudence: The Doctrine of Pith and Substance originally evolved within the Canadian constitutional framework to resolve jurisdictional conflicts between federal and provincial legislatures. Indian courts subsequently adopted this legal principle to untangle complex disputes arising from the distribution of legislative powers outlined in the Seventh Schedule.
Resolving Seventh Schedule Conflicts: Article 246 of the Indian Constitution strictly divides legislative power into three domains: the Union List, State List, and Concurrent List. When a law enacted by one legislative body seems to accidentally overlap with a subject assigned to another, the judiciary applies this doctrine to identify the law’s “true nature and character” rather than just its superficial wording.
The Principle of Incidental Encroachment: If the “pith and substance” (the core essence and primary objective) of the legislation falls legally within the permitted competence of the enacting body, the law is upheld as completely valid. The courts have consistently ruled that mere incidental or accidental encroachment into another legislative list does not render the entire statute unconstitutional.

📌 Constitutional Doctrines

Q.2) The “Doctrine of Colorable Legislation” is based on the Latin maxim ‘Quando aliquid prohibetur ex directo, prohibetur et per obliquum’, which means:

Ans > What cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly

Checks on Legislative Competence: The Doctrine of Colorable Legislation functions as a strict constitutional check on the law-making powers of the legislature. It is invoked when a legislature lacks the direct constitutional authority to enact a specific law but attempts to achieve the same result through a disguised, indirect, or roundabout legislative route.
Irrelevance of Legislative Motive: When applying this doctrine, the judiciary strictly examines the actual competence of the legislature to pass the law, rather than the underlying intentions or good faith of the lawmakers. Even if the legislature’s motive is entirely noble and meant for public welfare, the law will be struck down if it exceeds constitutional boundaries.
Application in Landmark Cases: The Supreme Court famously applied this doctrine in the landmark case of Kameshwar Singh v. State of Bihar. The Court scrutinized a state law regarding the abolition of Zamindari estates, ensuring the state was not overstepping its constitutional limits under the guise of public interest and compensation formatting.

📌 Constitutional Doctrines

Q.3) The “Doctrine of Eclipse” applies primarily to pre-constitutional laws that violate Fundamental Rights. It means that such laws are:

Ans > Not dead, but remain dormant/overshadowed by the Fundamental Right and can become active again if the right is amended

Rooted in Article 13(1): This constitutional doctrine is directly derived from Article 13(1) of the Indian Constitution, which deals with laws that were in force in the territory of India immediately before the commencement of the Constitution. It states that such laws, in so far as they are inconsistent with Fundamental Rights, shall be void to the extent of that inconsistency.
The Shadow of Fundamental Rights: Under this doctrine, an inconsistent pre-constitutional law is not entirely wiped out from the statute books. Instead, it becomes completely overshadowed—or “eclipsed”—by the overriding power of the Fundamental Rights. The law remains in a dormant, comatose condition, technically existing but entirely unenforceable against citizens.
Revival Through Constitutional Amendment: A unique feature of this doctrine is that the eclipsed law is not dead forever. If a subsequent Constitutional Amendment modifies the specific Fundamental Right that caused the inconsistency, the shadow is removed. Once the conflict is resolved, the dormant law automatically revives and becomes fully active and enforceable again.

📌 Constitutional Doctrines

Q.4) The “Doctrine of Severability” dictates that:

Ans > If an unconstitutional provision can be separated from a valid law, only the offensive provision is declared void while the rest remains valid

Protection of Legislative Intent: The Doctrine of Severability (also known as the Doctrine of Separability) is designed to save perfectly valid legislative work from being discarded entirely due to a single flaw. If a statute contains a specific clause that violates the Constitution, the courts will attempt to “sever” or amputate only that invalid section, preserving the broader intent of the lawmakers.
The Test of Independence: For the doctrine to be applied successfully, the valid and invalid portions of the law must be distinctly separable. The crucial judicial test is whether the remaining, valid portion of the statute can function independently and survive on its own without the unconstitutional clause. If the parts are inextricably tangled, the whole law falls.
Famous Application in A.K. Gopalan Case: The Supreme Court vividly demonstrated this doctrine in the A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950) case. The Court struck down Section 14 of the Preventive Detention Act because it violated Fundamental Rights, but allowed the remainder of the Act to stay legally binding because it could operate independently of Section 14.

📌 Landmark Judgments

Q.5) In which landmark case did the Supreme Court explicitly rule that “Federalism” is an essential feature of the Basic Structure of the Constitution?

Ans > S.R. Bommai case (1994)

Curbing the Misuse of Article 356: The S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) judgment is considered the most critical safeguard against the arbitrary dismissal of state governments by the Central government. The Supreme Court laid down strict, binding guidelines to prevent the political misuse of Article 356 (President’s Rule), shifting the balance of power back toward the states.
Federalism and Secularism as Basic Structure: In this historic nine-judge bench decision, the Supreme Court unequivocally declared that both “Federalism” and “Secularism” are fundamental, unalterable pillars of the Constitution’s Basic Structure. Consequently, any state government acting in direct violation of the secular ethos of the Constitution could legally be dismissed by the President.
The Floor Test Requirement: One of the most profound practical impacts of the Bommai judgment was the establishment of the “floor test.” The Court ruled that the only constitutionally valid place to determine whether a Chief Minister enjoys majority support is on the floor of the Legislative Assembly, entirely removing the Governor’s subjective discretion from the equation.

📌 Landmark Judgments

Q.6) The landmark judgment Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018) decriminalized consensual adult homosexual relationships by striking down parts of which Section of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)?

Ans > Section 377

Overturning the Suresh Koushal Verdict: The historic Navtej Singh Johar judgment systematically overturned the Supreme Court’s previous ruling in the Suresh Kumar Koushal (2013) case, which had controversially reinstated the ban on homosexual acts. A five-judge Constitution bench unanimously ruled that criminalizing private, consensual sexual conduct between adults of the same sex was irrational, arbitrary, and profoundly unconstitutional.
Upholding Core Fundamental Rights: The Supreme Court systematically dismantled Section 377 by measuring it against Part III of the Constitution. The bench declared that the colonial-era law directly violated Article 14 (Right to Equality), Article 15 (Protection against Discrimination), Article 19 (Freedom of Expression), and critically, Article 21 (Right to Life, Dignity, and Privacy).
Transformative Constitutionalism: The judgment was celebrated globally as a triumph of “transformative constitutionalism”—the idea that the Constitution must adapt to foster a more egalitarian society. The Court emphasized that sexual orientation is a natural, inherent biological phenomenon, and societal morality cannot dictate or restrict the fundamental constitutional rights of the LGBTQ+ community.

📌 Landmark Judgments

Q.7) The Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2018) judgment struck down which colonial-era Section of the IPC that criminalized adultery?

Ans > Section 497

Striking Down Patriarchal Legislation: In the Joseph Shine case, a five-judge Constitution bench unanimously struck down Section 497 of the IPC, a 158-year-old colonial law that criminalized adultery. The Court heavily criticized the legal provision for being deeply patriarchal, noting that it treated a married woman as the physical property or “chattel” of her husband.
Violation of Equality and Dignity: The Supreme Court ruled that Section 497 was manifestly arbitrary and aggressively violated Article 14 (Equality before law), Article 15 (Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of sex), and Article 21 (Right to life and personal liberty). The law unconstitutionally deprived women of their sexual autonomy, dignity, and individual agency within a marriage.
Civil vs. Criminal Liability: While the judgment completely decriminalized adultery, making it no longer a punishable offense resulting in imprisonment, the Court clarified its status in civil law. Adultery remains a valid civil ground for seeking a divorce, but the state cannot intervene in the private lives of individuals by using the criminal justice system to punish marital infidelity.

📌 Landmark Judgments

Q.8) In Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015), the Supreme Court struck down which provision of the Information Technology Act, 2000, as unconstitutional for violating online free speech?

Ans > Section 66A

The Chilling Effect on Free Speech: Section 66A of the IT Act granted the police sweeping powers to arrest individuals for posting online content deemed “grossly offensive” or of a “menacing character.” The Supreme Court struck it down in its entirety, asserting that the law created a severe “chilling effect” on free speech, intimidating citizens into self-censorship on social media.
Vague and Open-Ended Terminology: The Court’s primary rationale for invalidating the section was its extreme vagueness. The terms used in the legislation—such as “annoyance,” “inconvenience,” and “grossly offensive”—were completely undefined. This lack of legal clarity allowed law enforcement agencies to interpret the law subjectively, leading to widespread misuse against political dissenters and ordinary citizens.
Crossing Reasonable Restrictions: While Article 19(1)(a) guarantees the freedom of speech and expression, Article 19(2) allows the state to impose “reasonable restrictions.” The Supreme Court held that Section 66A was far too broad and disproportionate, completely failing the constitutional test for reasonable restrictions as it penalized innocent speech that did not threaten public order or state security.

📌 Landmark Judgments

Q.9) The landmark Lily Thomas v. Union of India (2013) judgment ruled that sitting MPs and MLAs convicted of crimes attracting a prison sentence of two years or more:

Ans > Are disqualified immediately from the date of conviction

Striking Down Section 8(4) of the RPA: Prior to the Lily Thomas judgment, Section 8(4) of the Representation of the People Act (RPA), 1951, provided a protective shield to convicted politicians. It allowed sitting MPs and MLAs a three-month window to file an appeal against their conviction, during which they could retain their seats and parliamentary privileges.
Enforcing Immediate Disqualification: The Supreme Court declared Section 8(4) ultra vires (beyond the powers) of the Constitution. The Court ruled that any elected representative convicted of a crime carrying a jail term of two years or more stands instantly and automatically disqualified from the exact date of conviction, stripping away the three-month grace period entirely.
Cleansing the Political System: This landmark judgment is widely recognized as one of the most vital judicial interventions in Indian history aimed at decriminalizing politics. By removing the legal loophole that allowed convicted criminals to continue making laws while their appeals languished in higher courts for decades, the Court took a massive step toward enforcing political accountability.

📌 State Judiciary

Q.10) Which Article governs the appointment of an Acting Chief Justice of a High Court when the office falls vacant?

Ans > Article 223

Presidential Appointment Power: Under Article 223 of the Constitution, the President of India is granted the exclusive authority to appoint an Acting Chief Justice for any State High Court. This constitutional provision ensures that the crucial administrative and judicial leadership of a High Court does not collapse when the highest judicial office becomes temporarily vacant.
Scenarios Triggering the Article: The President can invoke this power under three specific circumstances: when the office of the Chief Justice of a High Court is completely vacant; when the incumbent Chief Justice is temporarily absent; or when the Chief Justice is physically or otherwise unable to perform the rigorous duties required by the office.
Selection from Existing Judges: When appointing an Acting Chief Justice, the President must select an individual from among the existing, duly appointed judges of that specific High Court. Generally, constitutional convention dictates that the seniormost puisne judge of that High Court is elevated to fulfill the duties of the Acting Chief Justice until a permanent appointment is made.

📌 State Judiciary

Q.11) Under Article 224, the President can appoint qualified persons as Additional Judges of a High Court for a temporary period not exceeding:

Ans > 2 years

Managing Judicial Workloads: Article 224 was specifically designed to help the judiciary manage sudden spikes in case pendency. It empowers the President of India to appoint Additional Judges to a High Court if there is a temporary, but significant, increase in the business of the court, or if there are massive arrears of unresolved cases piling up.
Strict Time Limit of Two Years: The Constitution places a strict, non-negotiable ceiling on the tenure of these specific appointments. An Additional Judge can only be appointed for a temporary, predetermined period that absolutely cannot exceed two years. This ensures the mechanism is used as a short-term pressure valve rather than a backdoor to permanent appointments.
Age Limitations Apply: Even though the appointment is strictly temporary, the constitutional age limit for High Court judges still applies. Regardless of when the two-year term is supposed to end, no person appointed as an Additional or Acting Judge can continue to hold that office after attaining the mandatory retirement age of 62 years.

📌 State Judiciary

Q.12) Does the power of superintendence granted to High Courts over all courts and tribunals under Article 227 include Armed Forces Tribunals (Courts Martial)?

Ans > No, military courts and tribunals are explicitly excluded

Broad Power of Superintendence: Article 227 grants every High Court exceptionally broad powers of superintendence over all courts and tribunals functioning within its territorial jurisdiction. This includes both administrative and judicial oversight, allowing the High Court to call for returns, make general rules, and prescribe forms for regulating the proceedings of these subordinate institutions.
The Strict Military Exclusion Clause: Despite this sweeping authority, Clause (4) of Article 227 contains a very clear, strict exception. It explicitly states that the High Court’s power of superintendence does not extend to any court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the Armed Forces, preserving the autonomy of military justice systems.
Preserving Military Discipline: This constitutional exemption exists primarily to ensure that the strict disciplinary structures of the military are not compromised or endlessly delayed by civilian judicial procedures. Courts-martial and Armed Forces Tribunals operate under distinct, specialized legal frameworks (like the Army Act) designed for rapid resolution of service-related offenses.

📌 State Judiciary

Q.13) Under Article 233, District Judges in a State are appointed, posted, and promoted by the Governor in consultation with the:

Ans > High Court of that State

The Highest Judicial Officer in the District: The District Judge holds the highest judicial position within a district’s geographical boundaries. Because they manage both massive administrative duties and serious judicial proceedings (including sessions cases carrying the death penalty), their appointment process is subjected to strict constitutional safeguards under Article 233 to ensure independence.
Mandatory Consultation with the High Court: The Governor of the State possesses the formal executive power to appoint, post, and promote District Judges. However, this is not discretionary; the Constitution explicitly mandates that the Governor can only take these actions in direct, meaningful consultation with the High Court exercising jurisdiction over that specific State.
Eligibility Criteria for Direct Recruitment: Under Article 233(2), if a person is not already in the service of the Union or the State, they can still be appointed as a District Judge. The constitutional prerequisite is that the candidate must have been a practicing advocate or pleader for a minimum of seven years and must be actively recommended by the High Court.

📌 State Judiciary

Q.14) Under Article 234, appointments of persons other than district judges to the judicial service of a State are made by the Governor in accordance with rules made after consultation with:

Ans > The State Public Service Commission and the High Court

Structuring the Subordinate Judiciary: Article 234 deals specifically with the foundational tiers of the state judiciary—officers appointed below the rank of District Judge (commonly known as Civil Judges, Munsifs, or Judicial Magistrates). This article ensures a robust, merit-based entry system for the vast majority of the judicial workforce operating at the grassroots level.
Dual Consultation Requirement: Unlike the appointment of District Judges (which involves only the High Court), appointing lower judiciary members requires a dual consultation process. The Governor must create the recruitment rules after formally consulting both the State Public Service Commission (which often conducts the examinations) and the State’s High Court.
Separation of Powers: This specific constitutional architecture guarantees the separation of powers at the state level. By forcing the executive (the Governor) to integrate both an independent recruiting body (SPSC) and the judiciary itself (the High Court) into the rule-making process, the Constitution aggressively insulates subordinate judges from political patronage and interference.

📌 State Judiciary

Q.15) The administrative expenses of a High Court, including all salaries, allowances, and pensions payable to its officers and servants, are charged on the:

Ans > Consolidated Fund of the State

Financial Independence of the Judiciary: To ensure that the judiciary remains completely independent and free from financial coercion by the state executive or legislature, Article 229(3) mandates that all administrative expenses of a High Court are classified as “charged” expenditures, placing them outside standard political budgeting debates.
Funding Source and Mechanisms: The salaries, allowances, and pensions of the High Court’s administrative staff (its officers and servants) are charged directly upon the Consolidated Fund of the State. This specific financial structure ensures that the day-to-day operations and staffing of the court cannot be financially starved by a hostile state government.
Non-Votable Expenditure: Because these administrative expenses are “charged” on the Consolidated Fund, they are fundamentally non-votable. While the State Legislative Assembly is permitted to discuss these expenditures during the budget session, the MLAs are constitutionally barred from voting on them, preventing politicians from weaponizing the court’s budget.

📌 State Judiciary

Q.16) While the salaries and allowances of sitting High Court Judges are charged on the Consolidated Fund of the State, their pensions are charged on the:

Ans > Consolidated Fund of India

The Constitutional Split in Funding: The Constitution creates a highly unique financial split regarding the remuneration of High Court judges. While they are actively serving, their salaries and operational allowances are drawn directly from the Consolidated Fund of the State in which they are currently presiding, reflecting their immediate service to that jurisdiction.
Central Guarantee for Pensions: Once a High Court judge retires, the financial responsibility shifts completely. According to Article 112(3)(d)(iii) of the Constitution, the pensions payable to retired High Court Judges are charged exclusively on the Consolidated Fund of India, fully guaranteed by the Central Government rather than the individual states.
Facilitating Judicial Transfers: This central pension mechanism is a deeply practical necessity. Under Article 222, High Court judges can be transferred between different states multiple times during their careers. By centralizing their pension on the Consolidated Fund of India, the Constitution prevents complex administrative disputes between multiple states over who owes the retired judge money.

📌 State Judiciary

Q.17) Who is empowered to extend the jurisdiction of a High Court to any Union Territory or exclude a UT from its jurisdiction?

Ans > The Parliament by law

Parliamentary Monopoly on Jurisdiction: Under Article 230 of the Indian Constitution, only the Parliament of India possesses the sovereign authority to stretch or shrink the territorial boundaries of a High Court’s jurisdiction concerning Union Territories. Neither the President, the Supreme Court, nor the State Legislature can unilaterally alter these judicial boundaries.
Common High Courts for States and UTs: Parliament frequently exercises this power to bring Union Territories under the legal umbrella of neighboring states. For example, the Parliament legally attached the jurisdiction of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands to the Calcutta High Court, and Lakshadweep to the Kerala High Court, recognizing geographical and historical proximities.
Exclusion and Independence: Similarly, Parliament has the exclusive power to exclude a Union Territory from a High Court’s jurisdiction or to elevate a UT’s judicial status entirely. A prime example is the National Capital Territory of Delhi, which Parliament granted its own completely independent High Court in 1966.

📌 State Judiciary

Q.18) Which High Court has territorial jurisdiction over the State of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram, and Arunachal Pradesh?

Ans > Gauhati High Court

The Hub of Northeastern Justice: The Gauhati High Court, originally known as the High Court of Assam and Nagaland, holds a unique and historically vital position in India’s judicial landscape. It serves as the common High Court for a massive territorial expanse, currently encompassing four distinct Northeastern states: Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram, and Arunachal Pradesh.
Largest Territorial Jurisdiction: Due to this multi-state structure, the Gauhati High Court boasts the largest territorial jurisdiction of any High Court in India. To manage this vast and geographically challenging area efficiently, the court maintains its principal seat in Guwahati (Assam), while operating permanent benches in Kohima (Nagaland), Aizawl (Mizoram), and Itanagar (Arunachal Pradesh).
Historical Reduction in Scope: While it covers four states today, its jurisdiction used to be even larger. Prior to 2013, the Gauhati High Court was the sole judicial authority for all seven “Sister States” of the Northeast. Its jurisdiction was reduced when Parliament established separate High Courts for Meghalaya, Manipur, and Tripura.

📌 State Judiciary

Q.19) In which year were separate, full-fledged High Courts established for Meghalaya, Manipur, and Tripura?

Ans > 2013

Reorganizing Northeastern Justice: In 2013, the Indian judicial map underwent a major structural change. The Government of India formally established three brand new, independent High Courts specifically for the Northeastern states of Meghalaya, Manipur, and Tripura, fundamentally decentralizing legal administration in the region.
Amending the 1971 Reorganisation Act: To bring these new courts into existence, the Parliament passed the North-Eastern Areas (Reorganisation) and Other Related Laws (Amendment) Act, 2012. This critical piece of legislation formally detached these three states from the sprawling, overburdened jurisdiction of the Gauhati High Court, granting them their own Chief Justices and judicial autonomy.
Improving Access to Justice: The primary motivation behind establishing these separate High Courts was to massively improve the speed and accessibility of justice for citizens in these specific states. Previously, litigants often faced immense geographical and financial hurdles traveling to Guwahati or waiting for circuit benches to resolve their legal disputes.

📌 State Judiciary