Part VI: The States

Chapter V - The High Courts in the States

Article 231: Establishment of a Common High Court for Two or More States

Original Article:

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the preceding provisions of this Chapter, Parliament may by law establish a common High Court for two or more States or for two or more States and a Union territory.

(2) In relation to any such High Court,—

(b) the reference in article 227 to the Governor shall, in relation to any rules, forms or tables for subordinate courts, be construed as a reference to the Governor of the State in which the subordinate courts are situate; and

(c) the references in articles 219 and 229 to the State shall be construed as a reference to the State in which the High Court has its principal seat:

Provided that if such principal seat is in a Union territory, the references in articles 219 and 229 to the Governor, Public Service Commission, Legislature and Consolidated Fund of the State shall be construed respectively as references to the President, Union Public Service Commission, Parliament and Consolidated Fund of India.

Explanation:

Article 231 of the Indian Constitution grants the Parliament the authority to establish a single High Court to serve two or more states, or two or more states along with a Union Territory. This provision aims to streamline judicial administration, particularly in states with smaller populations or similar judicial demands, ensuring that justice is accessible and efficiently administered.

Clause Headings:

1. Empowering Parliament to Establish a Common High Court

Clause (1) empowers Parliament to legislate the establishment of a unified High Court serving multiple states or a combination of states and a Union Territory. The phrase “notwithstanding anything contained in the preceding provisions of this Chapter” grants overriding authority, ensuring that Parliament’s power to create a common High Court supersedes other provisions within the same Chapter, which generally prescribe separate High Courts for each state.

2. Interpretation Adjustments for Common High Courts

This clause provides interpretations relevant to a common High Court’s functioning across multiple jurisdictions:

Clause (2)(b): Governor Reference Interpretation

Here, references to the Governor under Article 227 are specifically directed to the Governor of the state where the subordinate courts reside, ensuring jurisdictional clarity. For instance, if the Punjab and Haryana High Court covers multiple states, matters concerning subordinate courts are overseen by the respective state’s Governor.

Clause (2)(c): Principal Seat Interpretation

This sub-clause ensures that references to the “State” in Articles 219 and 229 pertain to the state where the High Court’s primary seat is located. For example, the primary seat of the Punjab and Haryana High Court is in Chandigarh, making it the state reference point for articles governing judicial appointments and administrative procedures.

Proviso: If the High Court’s primary seat is within a Union Territory, references to “Governor,” “Public Service Commission,” “Legislature,” and “Consolidated Fund of the State” apply instead to “President,” “Union Public Service Commission,” “Parliament,” and the “Consolidated Fund of India.” This provision allows flexibility in judicial administration where the High Court’s seat falls outside a state jurisdiction.

Amendments and Judicial Interpretation:

Ninety-Ninth Amendment (2014): Clause (a) was omitted by the 99th Constitutional Amendment, later struck down in 2015 by the Supreme Court in Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association and Another v. Union of India. Initially, Clause (a) interpreted references in Article 217 to apply to all Governors in states under a common High Court’s jurisdiction, but its omission reflects the Court’s stance on maintaining judicial independence.

Historical Significance: Article 231 reflects the Constitution's flexibility in administering justice across regions with overlapping or low-demand jurisdictions, catering to the evolving demands of the judiciary and fostering efficient legal oversight across India’s states and Union Territories.

Debates and Deliberations:

Article 231 was deliberated to ensure judicial efficiency in states with smaller populations and low judicial demand. The debates emphasized:

• Shri Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar: Advocated for common High Courts to streamline resources and maintain judicial uniformity.
• Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Highlighted the need for legislative flexibility in addressing judicial needs across states and Union Territories.
• Sardar Hukam Singh: Warned about potential administrative complexities and underscored the importance of coordination between states sharing a High Court.

References:

• Constitution of India (Ninety-Ninth Amendment)
• Judicial reorganization and governance of Union territories
• Legislative debates on common High Courts