Article 223

The Chief Justice of a High Court has important administrative duties, like assigning cases and managing the court's functioning. The framers of the Constitution anticipated that this position could become vacant (due to retirement, transfer, or death) or that the sitting Chief Justice might be temporarily unavailable (due to illness, leave, or other reasons). Without a provision like this, the High Court's administrative machinery could stall. Article 223 ensures continuity of leadership by allowing the President to appoint an acting Chief Justice from among the existing judges of that court, keeping the institution functional at all times.

Courts have generally treated this as a straightforward administrative provision. There is no major body of case law reinterpreting its core meaning, though matters have arisen regarding the scope of an acting Chief Justice's powers compared to a permanent one, and the process is understood to work alongside conventions on consultation with the Chief Justice of India, similar to appointments under Article 217. No landmark judgment has substantially altered the plain reading of this Article.

• Myth: The acting Chief Justice becomes the permanent Chief Justice automatically.
  Fact: An acting Chief Justice under Article 223 only holds temporary charge; a separate, permanent appointment process (often involving consultation similar to Article 217) is needed to make someone the permanent Chief Justice.
• Myth: Any judge from any court can be appointed as acting Chief Justice.
  Fact: The Article specifies that the appointee must be one of the other judges already sitting on that same High Court.