N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMARW.P. NO. 14554 OF 1988 ANDW.M.P. NO. 21768 OF 1998 K.V.Ananthakrushnan v. 1. The Registrar High Court Madras 104.2. The Chairman Rules Committee High

ORDERS.J.MUKHOPADHAYA, J.The writ petition was preferred by petitioner for a declaration thatthe Letter Patent dated 28th Dec., 1865, issued under Acts 24 and 25 ofVictoria Chapter 104 containing 45 clauses forming part of the Rules ofthe High Court, Madras (Original Side) as null and void and forappropriate orders.2. Before discussing the stand taken by the petitioner, it ispertinent to note that by the amended Letters Patent dated 28th Dec., 1865,the High Court of Judicature at Madras was established, as evident fromthe preamble to the Letters Patent in question and quoted below and,thereby, the petitioner has practically challenged the establishment ofthe High Court before the same High Court :-“For the High Court of Judicature for the Presidency ofMadras(28th December, 1865)Recitals of Acts 24 and 25 vic. C 104 – Victoria, by theGrace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain andIreland, Queen, Defender of the Faith. To all to whomthese presents hall come, greeting: Whereas by an Act ofParliament passed in the twenty-fourth and twenty-fifthyears of Our Reign entitled “An Act for establishing HighCourts of Judicature in India”, it was, amongst otherthings, enacted that it should be lawful for Her Majesty byLetters Patent under the Great Seal of the United Kingdom,to erect and establish, a High Court of Judicature atMadras, for the Presidency of Madras aforesaid, and thatsuch High Court should consit of a Chief Justice and asmany Judges, not exceeding 15, as Her Majesty might, fromtime to time, think fit to appoint, who should be selectedfrom among persons qualified as in the said Act isdeclared: Provided always that he persons who at the timeof the establishment of such High Court were Judges of theSupreme Court of Judicature and permanent Judges of theCourt of Sudder Dewany Adawlut or Sudder Adawlut, of thesame Presidency, should be and become Judges of such HighCourt without further appointment for that purpose, and theChief Justice of such Supreme Court should become the ChiefJustice of such High Court and that upon the establishmentSudder Dewany Adawlut and Faujidarry Adawlut at Madras inthe said Presidency should be abolished:And that the High Court of Judicature so to beestablished should have and exercise all such Civil,Criminal, Admiralty, and Vice-Admiralty, Testamentary,Intestate and Matrimonial Jurisdiction, original andappellate, and all such powers and authority for and inrelation to, the administration of Justice in the saidPresidency of Her Majesty might, by such Letters Patent asaforesaid grant and direct, subject, however, to such https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ directions and limitations as to the exercise of original,civil and criminal jurisdiction beyond the limits of thePresidency Town, as might be prescribed thereby: and saveas by such Letters Patent, might be otherwise directed andsubject and without prejudice to the legislative powers inrelation to the matters aforesaid of the Governor-Generalof India in Council, the High Court so to be establishedshould have and exercise all jurisdiction, and every powerand authority whatsoever, in any manner vested in any ofthe Courts in the same Presidency abolished under the saidAct at he time of the abolition of such last mentionedCourts:And whereas We did, upon full consideration of thepremises, think fit to erect and establish, and by OurLetters Patent under the Great Seal of the United Kingdomof Great Britain and Ireland bearing date at Westminsterthe Twenty-sixth day of June, in the Twenty-fifth Year ofOur Reign, in the year of Our Lord, one thousand eighthundred and sixty-two did accordingly for Us, Our heirs andsuccessors, erect and establish at Madras, for thePresidency of Madras, aforesaid, a High Court of Judicaturewhich should be called the High Court of Judicature atMadras, and did thereby constitute the said Court to be aCourt of Record; and whereas We did thereby appoint andordain, that he said High Court of Judicature at Madrasshould, until further or other provision should be made byUs, or Our heirs and successors in that behalf, inaccordance with the recited Act, consist of a Chief Justiceand five Judges, and did thereby constitute and appointcertain persons, being respectively qualified as in thesaid Act is declared to be Judges of the said High Court.And whereas by the said recited Act it is declared lawfulfor Her Majesty at any time within three years after theestablishment of the said High Court, by Her LettersPatent, to revoke all or such parts or provisions as HerMajesty might think fit of the Letters Patent by which suchCourt was established and to grant and make such otherpowers and provisions as Her Majesty might think fit, andas might have been granted or made by such first LettersPatent;And whereas by the Act of the Twenty-eighth year of OurReign, chapter fifteen, entitled “an Act to extend the termfor granting fresh Letters Patent for the High Courts inIndia, and to make further provision respecting theterritorial jurisdiction of the said Courts,” the time forissuing fresh Letters Patent has been extended to the firstof January one thousand eight hundred and sixty-six:And whereas, in order to make further provisionsrespecting the Constitution of the said High Court, and theadministration of Justice thereby it is expedient that thesaid Letters Patent, dated the twenty-sixth of June, onethousand eight hundred and sixty-two, should be revoked, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ and that some of the powers and provisions thereby grantedand made should be granted and made with amendments andadditional powers and provisions by fresh Letters Patent:”3. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the history ofestablishment of courts in India, cited a number of books and madesubmissions, as referred hereunder :-Queen Elizabeth granted a Charter in 1600 incorporating theLondon East India Company. William III granted a Charter in 1698to establish English East India Company. Both Companies wereamalgamated and came to be knows as English East India Company.This Company carried their Trade and Business in the East Indies,including India. Slowly the East India Company started acquiringterritories and administering the natives. As a part and parcelof Administration, the East India Company established Courts oflaw in different places of their occupation after obtainingpermission from the Crown. Even the Governor and Board ofDirectors of the East India Company sitting at England used toissue Charters to the 'Factor' who was the Head of the Factory,to Administer Justice to their employees and even to the natives.The occupation of the Indian territory by the East India Companyexpanded day by day. The persons of the East India Company liveda lavish life. This raised the eyebrows of many of theEnglishmen.As the East India Company strengthened its hold on the nativeIndians, they indulges in malpractice and bad administration andthis was complained to the British Government by many persons.In 1857 there was a Sippoy Mutiny revolting against the Englishrule and in 1858 the Queen issued a proclamation and the BritishParliament passed the Government of India Act, 1858.Consequently, the East India Company and its affairs were takenover by the British Government. To alleviate the corruptpractice crept in the judicial system, the British Governmentwanted to establish a Judicial institution for rendering betterjustice. Toward this goal, the British Parliament passed 'IndianHigh Courts Act, 1861' and in the same year 'Indian Councils Act'was also passed. This Act empowered the Queen to establish HighCourt of Judicature at Fort William in Bengal for the BengalDivision of the Presidency of Fort William and by like LettersPatent to erect and establish like High Courts at Madras andBombay for those presidencies respectively. The Indian HighCourts Act inter alia provided for the strength, qualificationand service condition of the Judges and the power and theirjurisdiction. Under this Act, by virtue of Section 8, theSupreme Courts in the Presidency of Fort William in Bengal(Calcutta), the Presidency of Madras and the Presidency of Bombayand the Appellate Courts of Sudder Diwani Adawlut and theFoujdary Adalut in all the three presidencies were abolished andjurisdiction exercised by the Supreme Courts and the Courts ofSudder Diwani Adawlut and Foujdary were vested in the HighCourts. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ By virtue of the power granted to the Queen under the IndianHigh Courts Act, 1861, the Queen issued the 'Letters Patent,1862' for the High Court of Judicature for the Presidency ofMadras on the 26th June, 1862. The Letters Patent had a lifetime of three years and in 1865 the Queen issued an AmendedLetters Patent which came into force on 28.12.1865. This LettersPatent continues to be the basis for the administration of theHigh Court and forms part and parcel of the High Court Rules. Asthe Letters Patent 1862 and 1865 were issued as authorised by the'Indian High Courts Act, 1861', the Letters Patent is only apermissive or subordinate legislation, if at all called to be alaw.By virtue of the Indian Councils Act, 1861, the DominionCouncil and the Provincial Councils were given power to legislateon the subject allotted to them as per the Indian Councils Actand the subsequent legislature. The Dominon Councils as well asthe provincial councils were enacting laws in their sphereswithout any restriction or intervention by the Britishauthorities. As full liberty was given to the Dominion Counciland to the provincial councils, the provisions of the ColonialLaws Validity Act, 1865, was not made applicable to the BritishTerritories in India. The subject matter for which law could bemade by the Dominion Council and the provincial councils weredemarcated in the Devolution Rules framed under the Government ofIndia Act. Only the Provincial Council was given power tolegislate with regard to law Courts and their affairs.The Government of India Act, 1915, was a consolidating Act andit repealed the Indian Councils Act, 1861, and the 'Indian HighCourts Act, 1861'. Part-IX of Government of India Act, 1915,deals with the affairs of the Indian High Courts. As per theGovernment of India Act, 1915, the Letters Patent, 1862 and 1865issued under the Indian High Courts Act, 1861, are also deemed tobe repealed. The Government of India Act, 1915, in Part-IXabsorbed all the High Courts established in British India byLetters Patent which includes the High Court of Judicature atMadras also. Therefore, it is to be deemed that the provisionsof the Letters Patent, 1865 were repealed and substituted byPart-IX of the Government of India Acts, 1916, 1919 and 1935.Chapter-II of Part-IX of the Government of India Act, 1935,provides for the administration and powers of the High Court.After this the Indian Provisional Constitutional Second AmendmentOrder and the Indian Independence Act were passed in 1947. In1947 the Governor General in Council issued orders establishingHigh Courts in different places which are continuing High Courts.All these enactments have now been consolidated and repealed bythe provisions of the Constitution of India which came into forceon 26.1.1950. Chapter-V of Part-VI of the Constitution of Indiadeals with administration and powers of the High Courts.Articles 214 to 231 deals with the High Courts. Therefore, allthe previous enactments dealing with the establishment,administration and affairs of the High Court are deemed to berepealed by Articles 214 to 231 of the Constitution of India. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Thereby, the Letters Patent also is deemed to be repealed. TheLetters Patent, 1865, deemed to have come to a close as early asthe Government of India Act, 1915, came into force whilerepealing the Indian High Courts Act, 1861.Apart from the High Courts established by Letters Patent, someof the High Courts were established by orders issued by theGovernor-General in Council. Some High Courts were establishedafter coming into force of the Constitution of India. SomePermanent Benches of the Main High Courts were established by thePresidential Ordinance. Some of the new High Courts wereestablished under the State Reorganisation Act. The High Courtsnow in existence and the permanent Benches in various places inIndia is given in detail in Appendix-1.4. The following submission has also been made by the learned counselfor the petitioner, while challenging the Letters Patent in question :-i) The Letters Patent, 1865, is ultra vires the Constitution ofIndia.ii) As Indian High Courts Act, 1861, was repealed by thesubsequent enactment, the Letters Patent, 1865, is also deemedto be repealed and no more alive for enforcement.Iii) As the subject matters provided under the Letters Patent,1865, are repealed by various subsequent Dominon, Provincial,Central and State enactments and Rules made by the authoritiesand the High Court, the provisions of the Letters Patent, 1865,have become obsolete and redundant. The Indian High Courts Act,1861, was passed only to neck out the East India Company and toacquire the power and administration over the British possessionin India. The Indian High Courts Act was one of such measuresand incidental to the British Feudalism.5. Certain other submissions were also made by the learned counsel forthe petitioner and they have also been put on record by filing writtensubmission, as detailed below :-The Preamble of the Letters Patent, 1865, is running riot tothe preamble of the Constitution of India. India having become aSovereign Democratic Republic cannot have a law in the name of aforeign head of the Executive or a Sovereign. Her Majesty ofEngland is no more the Chief Executive or the Ruler of India andthe Preamble to the Letters Patent, 1865, is deemed to havebecome obscure.The terms such as “We”, “Our”, “Us”, “Our heirs andsuccessors”, etc., used in the Letters Patent, 1865, would denoteonly the British Crown and her successors and her subjects. Asthe Queen is not the Ruler of India and the Government of Indiacannot be considered to be a successor to the Crown, therefore,these terms have no relevance at all. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ The terms used in the Letters Patent such as “Our, special,grace, appoint and Ordain, etc., would show the command of theQueen and the subject in the receiving end. Therefore, the Queenby her grace had issued the Letters Patent which again is asymbol of the British hegemony. In short, the Preamble of theLetters Patent, 1865, in two paragraphs is the dictate of aMonarch and it is no more relevant or valid to India.The Letters Patent, 1865, established the High Court at Madrasfor the Presidency of Madras. The Madras Presidency consisted ofAndhra Pradesh, Kerala, Karnataka and Madras. After the StateReorganisation Act, the Presidency of Madras has becomebifurcated into State of Andhra Pradesh, State of Karnataka,State of Kerala and State of Tamil Nadu. The other States havegot their respective High Courts established afterReorganisation. So the “Madras Presidency at Madras” used in theLetters Patent has no relevance.The Indian Councils Act, 1861, gave powers to the DominionCouncil and the Provincial Councils to pas laws in respect of thesubject matters allotted to them. Likewise, the subsequentenactments such as Government of India Act, 1915, 1919 and 1935and the Provincial Constitutional Order, 1947, and theConstitution of India, 1950, have given powers to the DominionCouncil and the Provincial Councils and after coming into forceof the Constitution of India, 1950, to the State Legislatures andthe Parliament of India to pass laws as provided under theLegislative list and Devolution Rules as such many laws had beenpassed repealing the provisions of the Indian High Courts Act,1861, and the Letters Patent, 1865 and such repeals are mentionedin Appendix-2. Therefore, the provisions of the Letters Patent,1865, have become redundant and no more in force.Even while the Indian Councils Act, 1861, came into force thephrase “British India” was amended to “India”. Subsequently, theshort-title Act, 1897 provided that the British India Acts wouldbe known as “Indian Act”. After coming into force of the IndianIndependence Act, 1947, no more Indian continued to be a dominionof the British Government. After becoming a Sovereign DemocraticRepublic and giving a Constitution to ourselves neither theBritish Government nor His Majesty or Her Majesty or the terms“British India” or “Dominion” have got any relevance in thesphere of any activities of the Indian government eitherexecutive or legislative or judicial. Therefore, the LettersPatent, 1865, which continues in the name of the Queen has norelevance whatsoever. The long stay of the Letters Patent, 1865,is not an excuse to validate it as it lost its force andapplicability soon after coming into force of the Government ofIndia Act, 1915, which repealed the Indian High Courts Act, 1861,and by subsequent repealing enactments. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Article 372 of the Constitution of India is only a transitionalprovision. Reading the sub-clause 3 along with the main Articleit emerges that a law to be adapted had to be promulgated by thePresident of India within a period of two years from the date ofcommencement of the Constitution. But the Letters Patent, 1865,was not included in the adapted laws promulgated by the Presidentof India. Under Section 3 (29) of the General Clauses Act, 1897,the Law of India is not included the laws made by the BritishGovernment. The letters Patent, 1865 being an instrument handeddown by the English Queen, who is the head of the BritishGovernment, it is not an Indian Law and it has no forcewhatsoever. Under Article 366 (10) of the Constitution of Indiathe “Letters Patent” is not included in the list of existing law.The terms Law, Ordinance, Order, Bye-law, Rule or Regulation donot cover Letters Patent because the Letters Patent was issued bythe Crown under an Act enabling of the English Parliament.Issuing a 'Letters Patent' is a peculiar power given to theCrown. Therefore, the Letters Patent cannot be construed as anexisting law. Article 367 (3) defines that for the purpose ofthis constitution “foreign state” means any state other thanIndia. As such “Her Majesty” who had handed over the “LettersPatent” is a person of a foreign state in whose name no law cancontinue in India. Article 395 repeals the Government of IndiaAct, 1935 and the Indian Independence Act, 1947, and theConstitution of India is final. The Schedule VII of theConstitution of India provides for the legislation by both theLegislature and the Parliament to make laws with regard to theestablishment and administration and other affairs of the HighCourt and as such all the High Courts in India are to beconstrued as “High Court” under Article 224 of the Constitutionof India.Under the Constitution there is no categorisation of the HighCourts such as formed under the Charter, Letters Patent, GovernorGeneral's Order, by the Act of Parliament or Legislature or aPresidential Ordinance. All the High Courts are of equal statusand all the judges of the High Court also enjoy equal status.Majority of the High Courts are functioning under the Rulesframed by the Rules Committee or by the respective Legislature.The High Courts created under a Charter or a Letters Patent arenot accorded any special status nor they do have any specialsignificance. As such all the High Courts are deemed to be theHigh Courts as defined under the Constitution, it is notdesirable to have the Letters Patent o some High Courts and Rulesmade by the High Court or the State Legislature to the other HighCourts. To be in consonance with the provisions of theConstitution and to fall in line with other High Courts theLetters Patent in the name of the British Crown has to bedeclared null and void as it runs counter to the preamble andphilosophy of the Constitution of India. The Letters Patent,1865, also stands repealed by various enactments passed prior tothe constitution, after the constitution and the rules made bythe High Court for its Original and Appellate sides. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ The Constitution of India is the supreme document and all otherstatutes rules and regulations whatsoever should be subject tothe provisions of the constitution. Therefore, the preamble ofthe Constitution cannot be equated to the preamble of the otherstatutes. The preamble of the Constitution proclaims the purposeand philosophy of the Constitution. The philosophy of theConstitution is that India is a Sovereign Democratic Republic.In a sovereign republic no law can continue in the name of theforeign sovereign or a foreign authority. Otherwise it willtantamount to saying that the Queen is still competent to amendor alter the Letters Patent and the other bodies have not gainedthe exclusive and absolute power to amend or alter the rules ofthe High Court. The Letters Patent cannot be a perpetual lawafter the transfer of power by the British and India becoming arepublic.As on the date of coming into force of the Constitution underArticle 372 erstwhile Acts and Laws had to be adapted within twoyears period. Letters Patent was not adopted within the saidperiod. This may even be construed as a deliberate omission bythe authority concerned.The Imperial Acts became Indian Acts by “Indian Act AdaptationLaw, 1951” and the Letters Patent is not altered either in thepreamble or in its contents. After the Adaptation Law, 1951, thepreamble and the Letters Patent automatically gets extinguished.Schedule VII of the Constitution of India provides for the lawsto be made with regard to the High Courts and other courts bothby the Parliament and the State Legislatures. In List-I,Entries-77, 78, 79 and 95 and in List-II, Entries-3 and 65 and inList-III, Entries-1A and 46 provide for the law making by theParliament and Legislatures. Whileso, there is no reason ornecessity for the continuation of the Letters Patent. As earlyas the Government of India Act, 1915, came into force the LettersPatent became a dead wood.As the Parliament and the State Legislatures have failed toremove the Letters Patent, 1865, it is only the High Court, whichis competent to declare the Letters Patent, 1865, as invalid. Itis a benign command of the Constitution of India that all courtsshould interpret the laws in consonance with the provisions,philosophy and spirit of the Constitution.6. The 3rd respondent, Union of India, in its affidavit, while deniedthe submission, referred to Article 225 of the Constitution of India,which provides that the jurisdiction and law administered in any existingHigh Court shall be the same as immediately before preceding thecommencement of the Constitution of India. According to the 3rdrespondent, Letters Patent, being a law in force in the territory of Indiaimmediately before the commencement of the Constitution, will continue tobe in force and operative except to the extent that any provision isinconsistent with any part of the Constitution as per Article 13 of theConstitution. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

7. The 2nd respondent has given the background history of theestablishment of this Court vide Acts 24 and 25 of Victoria Chapter 104of Letters Patent, dated 28th Dec., 1865. According to the 2nd respondent,many clauses of the amended Letters Patent Acts 24 and 25 of VictoriaChapter 104 have become redundant.8. According to the 1st respondent, the petitioner has overlookedArticle 372 of the Constitution of India and the assumption made that thelaws enacted by the erstwhile Parliament Act of England or King in Councilstood dead and appears to have proceeded on hypothetical politicalphilosophies carried away by assumed sentiments rather than on soundreason of law. A law which has been continued and is used for day-to-dayadministration of justice in the State by the High Court cannot be doubtedas dead law and the contentions are contrary, having no substance ormerit. The 1st respondent has also given the history of establishment ofthe High Court of Judicature at Madras, which was originally made videActs 24 and 25 of Victoria Chapter 104 dated 25th June, 1862 amended vide28th Dec., 1865 by abolishing the Supreme Court and the Courts of SudderAdaulut and Farjdarry Adawlut at Madras.According to the 1st respondent, the original side rule of the HighCourt or the history of Acts 24 and 25 of Victoria Chapter 104 dated 28thDec., 1865, contain 45 clauses. As per Letters Patent, the High Courtof Judicature at Madras is a court of record. There were only threeChartered High Courts established in India, namely, Calcutta, Bombay andMadras during the British reign, which have been continued to be as suchin the respective places. Those Chartered High Court exercised differentpowers apart from exercising power provided under the Presidential Towns.They have been empowered by Letters Patent to exercise jurisdiction underAdmiralty matters, testamentary and intestate, matrimonial cases, originalside, etc. It was submitted that in Andhra Coffee & Flour Mills – Vs –Brooke Bond India Ltd. reported in 1995 (2) MLJ 663 :: 1995 TLNJ 263, ithas been held that Letters Patent was all along considered as law, but itsapplication was limited only to the three Chartered High Courts in India.The 1st respondent has also taken plea that many of the clauses of theLetters Patent in question have become obsolete.9. We have noticed that this Court was established vide Acts 24 and 25of Victoria Chapter 104 dated 28th Dec., 1865. The High Court assumesitself a creature under the said Act, it is not desirable for this Courtnor this Court is competent to declare its original establishment andconstitution as illegal. Further, though it is open to any person tochallenge the jurisdiction of a court of law, but such person cannotchallenge the constitution of the Court before the same Court, though itmay be challenged before a higher Court, if so permissible. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

10. Article 225 of the Constitution deals with the High Courts, whichwere existing at the time of enacting the Constitution of India, whichallowed the existing High Court to continue with respective powers as wereexercising immediately before the commencement of the Constitution. Thesaid provision is quoted hereunder :-“225. Jurisdiction of existing High Courts. - Subject tothe provisions of the Constitution and to the provisions ofany law of the appropriate Legislature made by virtue ofpowers conferred on that Legislature by this Constitution,the jurisdiction of, and the law administered in, anyexisting High Court, and the respective powers of theJudges thereof in relation to the administration of justicein the Court, including any power to make rules of Courtand to regulate the sittings of the court and of membersthereof sitting alone or in Division Courts, shall be thesame as immediately before the commencement of theConstitution:[Provided that any restriction to which the exercise oforiginal jurisdiction by any of the High Courts in respectto any matter concerning the revenue or concerning any actordered or done in the collection thereof was subjectimmediately before the commencement of this Constitutionshall no longer apply to the exercise of suchjurisdiction.]”The existing laws and their adaptation were also allowed to becontinued under Article 372 of the Constitution of India. Clause (1) ofArticle 372 reads as follows :-“372. Continuance in force of existing laws and theiradaptation.-(1) Notwithstanding the repeal by this Constitution ofthe enactments referred to in article 395 but subject tothe other provisions of this Constitution, all the lawsin force in the territory of India immediately before thecommencement of this Constitution shall continue in forcetherein until altered or repealed or amended by acompetent legislature or other competent authority.”In the case of Ameena, AIR 1992 Bombay 214, the Bombay High Court heldthat the expression “all the law in force” includes not only enactment ofthe Indian Legislative, but also the common law of the land, which wasbeing administered by Courts in India. The same includes not onlypersonal law, but also the rules of the English Common Law, such as Rulesof Interpretation of Statutes, etc.10. So far as different clauses are concerned, we heard the parties,including learned counsel for the respondents. We also enquired into themater from other records of the High Court to find out the clauses ofLetters Patent, which are still in force and the clauses, which has becomeredundant. The following fact has been brought to the notice of the Court:- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ CLAUSESTATUSClause – 1 – Revocation of LettersPatent, 1862Having revoked and acted upon, ithas become redundantClause – 2 – High Court at Madrasto be continuedTo continue under the Constitution Clause – 3 – Judges of the saidHigh Court to be continuedTo continue under the Constitution Clause – 4 – Clerks, etc., of thesaid High Court to be continuedHas become obsolete in view ofArticle 229 of the Constitution Clause – 5 – Declaration to bemade by JudgesHas become obsolete in view ofArticle 219 of the Constitution andForm VIII of 3rd Schedule to theConstitution Clause – 6 - SealHas become obsolete in view of HighCourt Seals Act, 1950, whereby formand contents of the Seal of theHigh Court has changedClause – 7 – Writs, etc., to issuein name of the Crown, and undersealAs this clause is inconsistent withthe provision of the Constitution,they are now issued in the name ofthe High Court itself under Article226 of the Constitution of IndiaClause – 8 – Appointment ofOfficersHas become obsolete in view ofArticle 229 of the Constitution Clause – 9 – Powers of High Courtin admitting Advocates, Vakeelsand AttorneysThe power has been taken away andis vested with the Bar Council byAdvocates Act, 1961.Clause – 10 – In making rules forthe qualifications, etc.,Advocates, Vakeels and AttorneysThe power has been taken away andis vested with the Bar Council byAdvocates Act, 1961.Clause – 11 – Local limits of theordinary original jurisdiction ofthe High CourtTo be administered in terms withthe Constitution and the CivilProcedure CodeClause – 12 – Originaljurisdiction as to suitsTo be administered in terms withthe Constitution and the CivilProcedure Code https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Clause – 13 – Extraordinaryoriginal civil jurisdictionTo be administered in terms withthe Constitution and the CivilProcedure CodeClause – 14 – Joinder of severalcauses of actionTo be administered in terms withthe Constitution and the CivilProcedure CodeClause – 15 – Appeal from theCourts of Original Jurisdiction tothe High Court in appellatejurisdictionA part of the provision has becomeobsolete in view of the amendmentto the Civil Procedure Code byAmending Acts, 1976 and 2002 andinsertion of Section 100-AClause – 16 – Appeal from Court inthe ProvincesTo be administered in terms withthe Constitution and the CivilProcedure CodeClause – 17 – Jurisdiction as toinfants and lunaticsTo be administered in terms withthe Constitution and the Actsenacted by ParliamentClause – 18 – Provision withrespect to the Insolvent CourtTo be administered in terms withthe Constitution and PresidencyInsolvency Act and Rules framed bythe High CourtClause – 19 – By the High Court inexercise of Ordinary OriginalCivil JurisdictionNo equity jurisdiction conferredseparately – no case can be filedonly on the ground of equity –emphasis rules of natural justice Clause – 20 – In the exercise ofextraordinary original civiljurisdiction No equity jurisdiction conferredseparately – no case can be filedonly on the ground of equity –emphasis rules of natural justice Clause – 21 – By the High Court inthe exercise of appellatejurisdiction No equity jurisdiction conferredseparately – no case can be filedonly on the ground of equity –emphasis rules of natural justice Clause – 22 – Ordinary OriginalJurisdiction of the High CourtHave become obsolete in view ofvesting of jurisdiction with CityCivil Court in terms with Code ofCriminal Procedure Amendment Act,Madras Act XXXIV of 1955 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Clause – 23 – Jurisdiction as topersonsHave become obsolete in view ofvesting of jurisdiction with CityCivil Court in terms with Code ofCriminal Procedure Amendment Act,Madras Act XXXIV of 1955Clause – 24 – ExtraordinaryOriginal Criminal Jurisdiction Original Criminal Jurisdiction ofthe High Court had been abolishedClause – 25 – No appeal from theHigh Court exercising OriginalJurisdiction Have become obsolete in view ofvesting of jurisdiction with CityCivil Court in terms with Code ofCriminal Procedure Amendment Act,Madras Act XXXIV of 1955Clause – 26 – High Court to reviewon certificate of Advocate-GeneralHave become obsolete in view ofvesting of jurisdiction with CityCivil Court in terms with Code ofCriminal Procedure Amendment Act,Madras Act XXXIV of 1955Clause – 27 – Appeal from CriminalCourts in the ProvincesTo be administered in terms withthe Code of Criminal ProcedureClause – 28 – Hearing of referredcases and revision of criminaltrials To be administered in terms withthe Code of Criminal ProcedureClause – 29 – High Court maydirect the transfer of a case fromone Court to anotherTo be administered in terms withthe Code of Criminal Procedure andalso the inherent jurisdiction ofthe High CourtClause – 30 – Offenders to bepunished under Indian Penal CodeTo be administered in terms withthe Indian Penal Code as amendedvide Criminal Law Amendment Act andother ActsClause – 31 – Judges may beauthorised to sit in any place byway of circuit or specialcommissionTo continue under the Constitutionand the Madras High Court(Establishment of Permanent Benchat Madurai) Order, 2004Clause – 32 - CivilTo continue as per the Constitutionand the relevant lawsClause – 33 - CriminalTo continue as per the Constitutionand the relevant laws https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Clause – 34 – Testamentary andIntestate Jurisdiction To continue as per the Constitutionand the relevant lawsClause – 35 – MatrimonialJurisdiction Has become obsolete in view ofpassing of the Family Courts Actand vesting the jurisdiction withthe Family Court in matters arisingunder the Indian Divorce ActClause – 36 – Single Judges andDivision CourtsTo continue under the Madras HighCourt RulesClause – 37 – Regulation andProceedings (Civil Procedure Code)To Continue Clause – 38 – Regulation ofProceedings (Criminal ProcedureCode)To Continue Clause – 39 – Power to Appeal(Appeals to Privy Council)Has become obsolete in view ofabolition of Privy Council by Act Vof 1949Clause – 40 – Appeal frominterlocutory judgmentsHas become obsolete in view ofabolition of Privy Council by Act Vof 1949Clause – 41 – Appeal in criminalcases, etc.Has become obsolete in view ofabolition of Privy Council by Act Vof 1949Clause – 42 – Rule as totransmission of copies of evidenceand other documentsHas become obsolete in view ofabolition of Privy Council by Act Vof 1949Clause – 43 – High Court to complywith requisition from Governmentfor recordsHave become redundant in view ofConstitution and it is voidClause – 44 – Powers of IndianLegislature preservedHave become redundant in view ofConstitution and it is voidClause – 45 – Provisions of formerLetters Patent inconsistent withthese Letters Patent to be voidOnly declaration12. In view of the fact that most of the clauses of the Letters Patenthave become obsolete and many of it has become void after promulgation ofthe Constitution, no further declaration is required to be made. Otherclauses as shown to be continuing being not inconsistent with anyprovision of the Constitution, shall continue till amended or supersededby other law. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

13. There being no merit, this writ petition fails and it isaccordingly dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition isalso dismissed. But there shall be no order as to costs.GLNSd/-Asst.Registrar/true copy/ Sub Asst.RegistrarTo1. The Registrar High Court, Madras 104.2. The Chairman Rules Committee High Court, Madras 1043. The Law Secretary Government of India Central Secretariat New Delhi 110 001.4. The Law Secretary Government of Tamil Nadu Fort St. George, Chennai.+1 cc to Mr.K.S.Gnanasambandan, Advocate Sr.No.72614.+1 cc to The Government Pleader Sr.No.72878.AKR(CO)DCP/13.12 W.P. NO. 14554 OF 1988