- Enabled the High Court to issue writs to any person or authority, even if the cause of action occurs outside its territorial limitations if the cause of action occurs inside its geographical limits.
- Raised the age of retirement for high court judges from 60 to 62 years old.
- Enabled the appointment of retired high court justices as acting judges in the same court.
- Provided judges transferring from one High Court to another with a compensation allowance.
- Made it possible for a retired High Court judge to serve as an ad hoc Supreme Court judge.
- The mechanism for determining the age of Supreme Court and High Court judges was established.
Statement of Object and Reasons-
- Correspond to the Union List’s articles 124, 128, 217, 220, 222, 224A, 226 and entry 78 of the list.
- It is proposed that Article 217 be amended to elevate the retirement age for High Court Judges from sixty to sixty-two years.
- When doubt about a Supreme Court or High Court Judge’s correct age arises, the question must be decided by the President.
- It is proposed that a particular provision in articles 124 and 217 be included to clarify the situation.
- Article 217 Appointment and conditions of the office of a Judge of High Court–
- Judges should be shifted from one High Court to another when it is deemed necessary in the public interest.
- The Judge who is transferred is likely to face additional financial hardship as a result of the transfer.
- As a result, it is requested that he be paid a compensation allowance in addition to his income.
- When a Judge is moved from one High Court to another, he is unable to resume practice in any of the High Court where he previously served as a Judge due to the restrictions of Article 220.
- Article 220 Restriction of Practice after being a permanent Judge–
- When it is deemed essential in the public interest, judges should be transferred from one High Court to another.
- As a result of the move, the Judge who is transferred is likely to incur further financial difficulty.
- As a result, he should be granted a compensation allowance in addition to his salary.
- Due to the limits of Article 220, when a Judge is transferred from one High Court to another, he is unable to resume practice in any of the High Courts where he previously served as a Judge.
- Article 226 Power of High Court to issue certain writs–
- The Punjab High Court is the sole High Court with jurisdiction over the Central Government, according to Article 226 of the Constitution.
- Litigants from far away will face significant hardship as a result of this. As a result, it is suggested to alter article 226 so that where any relief is sought against a government, authority, or individual for any conduct taken,
- The High Court within whose jurisdiction the cause of action arises may also have jurisdiction to issue appropriate directions, orders, or writs.
In the Fifteenth Amendment (1963), by revising Article 217, the retirement age of High Court Judges was raised from 60 to 62 years. The procedures for determining the age of Supreme Court and High Court judges were revised by amending Articles 124 and 217 (3). Due to long-running litigation in Mitter’s case, the Amendment was required. Article 222 was amended to offer a compensation stipend to High Court Judges in addition to their remuneration when they are transferred from one Court to another. A new Article 224-A was established, allowing former High Court judges to serve as Judges of the same Court. It also inserted a new clause (1-A) to Article 226 that allows High Courts to issue writs to any person or authority even if the cause of action occurred inside their geographical jurisdiction. The Honourable Supreme Court’s decision on Election Commission v. Venkata Rao compelled the change. Only the Punjab High Court could issue writs against any department of the Government of India based in New Delhi before the modification. Article 128 was changed to allow a retired High Court Judge to serve as an ad hoc Supreme Court Judge. The words ‘continental shelf’ was inserted into Article 297.
The modification changed Article 311(2), giving a public worker a second chance to make a disciplinary representation after the investigation was completed and the authority decided to penalise him with dismissal and a decrease in rank. Articles 128, 299, 316, and the 7th Schedule were also changed.
Constitutional Law of India by Dr JN Pandey
 AIR 1965 SC 911
If you are a lawyer or a law student who is looking for a job, then you can find details about the latest openings here.
I have always been against Glorifying Over Work and therefore, in the year 2021, I have decided to launch this campaign “Balancing Life”and talk about this wrong practice, that we have been following since last few years. I will be talking to and interviewing around 1 lakh people in the coming 2021 and publish their interview regarding their opinion on glamourising Over Work.
IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN PARTICIPATING IN THE SAME, DO LET ME KNOW.
The copyright of this Article belongs exclusively to Ms. Aishwarya Sandeep. Reproduction of the same, without permission will amount to Copyright Infringement. Appropriate Legal Action under the Indian Laws will be taken.
If you would also like to contribute to my website, then do share your articles or poems at email@example.com