Part VI: The States

Chapter V - The High Courts in the States

Article 230: Extension of Jurisdiction of High Courts to Union Territories

Original Article:

(1) Parliament may by law extend the jurisdiction of a High Court to, or exclude the jurisdiction of a High Court from, any Union territory.

(2) Where the High Court of a State exercises jurisdiction in relation to a Union territory,—

nothing in this Constitution shall be construed as empowering the Legislature of the State to increase, restrict or abolish that jurisdiction; and

the reference in article 227 to the Governor shall, in relation to any rules, forms or tables for subordinate courts in that territory, be construed as a reference to the President.

Explanation:

Article 230 of the Indian Constitution addresses the judicial administration of Union territories by empowering Parliament to extend or restrict the jurisdiction of State High Courts to these regions. This provision plays a crucial role in maintaining judicial consistency and access in Union territories, which may not have the infrastructure or population base to sustain independent High Courts.

Clause Headings:

1. Legislative Authority Over Judicial Boundaries

This clause enables Parliament to extend or withdraw the jurisdiction of a High Court over any Union territory. For example, Parliament extended the jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court to cover Goa before Goa attained statehood. Such provisions allow flexibility in managing Union territories without necessitating a standalone High Court, promoting efficient use of judicial resources.

2. Limiting State Influence and Presidential Oversight

This clause restricts state legislatures from interfering with jurisdiction once extended by Parliament. Additionally, it designates the President as the authority for judicial rules concerning subordinate courts in Union territories, taking the place of the Governor. For instance, the approval of procedural changes for subordinate courts in Union territories like Puducherry would require Presidential consent rather than that of the Governor of the adjoining state, Tamil Nadu. This central oversight reflects Union territories' unique governance under the central government.

Amendment History: The Constitution (Seventh Amendment) Act, 1956

Before the 1956 amendment, Articles 230, 231, and 232 detailed different aspects of judicial management in Union territories. The Seventh Amendment replaced these provisions, consolidating them into a unified Article 230. This shift was part of a significant constitutional reorganization aimed at creating an efficient administrative structure for India’s states and Union territories post-independence, thus facilitating a more integrated judiciary.

Following this amendment, the jurisdiction of the Punjab High Court was extended to include Delhi (until Delhi received its own High Court in 1966). This decision centralized judicial functions, making justice more accessible to residents of Delhi without requiring an entirely separate High Court.

Illustrative Example:

A practical application of this Article is observed in the Delhi High Court’s jurisdiction over Andaman and Nicobar Islands until the islands were reassigned under the Calcutta High Court. Such jurisdictional assignments ensure that Union territories without their own High Courts can still access higher judicial recourse through a state’s High Court.

References:

• Constitution of India (Seventh Amendment)
• Judicial reorganization and Union territory administration
• Legislative debates on judicial jurisdiction and governance