Constitution of India
Article 230: Extension of jurisdiction of High Courts to Union territories
Part VI — The States (Chapter V — High Courts in the States)
Clause (1)
WHAT IT SAYS: Parliament may by law extend the jurisdiction of a High Court to, or exclude the jurisdiction of a High Court from, any Union territory. WHAT IT MEANS: Only Parliament — NOT the State Legislature or Executive — can decide which High Court covers a Union territory, or remove a High Court's authority over one. KEY DOCTRINE: Doctrine of Parliamentary Exclusivity over Union Territory judicial arrangements — States cannot interfere with UT judicial governance.
Clause (2)(a)
WHAT IT SAYS: When a State High Court exercises jurisdiction over a Union territory, no State Legislature can increase, restrict, or abolish that jurisdiction. WHAT IT MEANS: The State Legislature is constitutionally barred from altering the jurisdictional reach of its own High Court over a Union territory — only Parliament can do so. KEY DOCTRINE: Protection of centralised judicial administration — prevents States from undermining Parliament's exclusive power over Union territories.
Clause (2)(b)
WHAT IT SAYS: The reference to the 'Governor' in Article 227 (superintendence over subordinate courts) shall be construed as a reference to the 'President' for Union territories. WHAT IT MEANS: Since Union territories are centrally administered under Article 239, the President replaces the Governor for approving rules, forms, and tables of subordinate courts in Union territories. KEY DOCTRINE: Substitution of central executive authority — reflects the direct governance structure of Union territories under the President.
Constitutional Inspiration
SOURCE(S): 1. Government of India Act, 1935 — Section 229 and related provisions Original provision: The GoI Act 1935 empowered the Crown to extend jurisdiction of Federal Court and High Courts to Chief Commissioner's Provinces. What India kept: The concept of extending existing High Court jurisdiction to centrally-administered territories rather than creating separate courts. INDIA'S SPECIFIC ADAPTATIONS: 1. Parliamentary sovereignty over UT judiciary — Unlike colonial provisions where the Crown exercised power, India vested this power exclusively in Parliament through law. 2. Express bar on State Legislature — India specifically prohibited State Legislatures from altering High Court jurisdiction over UTs, a safeguard absent in the 1935 Act. 3. Governor-to-President substitution — India introduced a clean constitutional mechanism substituting the President for the Governor in UT judicial administration, reflecting the federal scheme of centrally-administered territories. IF ORIGINAL INDIAN CONTRIBUTION: The framers created this provision post-1956 to address the unique challenge of integrating newly-created Union Territories into the existing judicial framework after the abolition of Part B, C, and D States.
Constituent Assembly Debate
DEBATED ON: The Article in its PRESENT form was NOT debated in the Constituent Assembly. BACKGROUND: 1. The original Article 230 (dealing with Part B States' High Courts) was debated on 13 June 1949 (CAD Volume VIII) and 1-2 August 1949 (CAD Volume IX). 2. The original draft articles 213 and 213-A discussed High Courts for Part II States (princely states). 3. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar moved amendments to provide that even States in Part II should have a High Court or access to one. KEY SPEAKERS ON ORIGINAL ARTICLE 230: 1. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar — Moved that Part II States must have High Courts; if separate courts were impractical, jurisdiction of existing High Courts should be extended. 2. Shri T.T. Krishnamachari — Moved amendment No. 2788 to align Part III State provisions with Part I States. 3. Shri A. Thanu Pillai (Travancore) — Noted the recent shift to bring Part III States into line with Part I States was a departure from the original Draft. FINAL OUTCOME: The original Article 230 was adopted as amended, but was entirely SUBSTITUTED by the 7th Amendment Act, 1956 following the States Reorganisation Commission's recommendations — hence the present text was never debated in the Assembly. NOTE: No direct Ambedkar quote is available for the substituted (current) Article 230.
Landmark Judgments
LANDMARK JUDGMENTS: 1. No landmark Supreme Court judgments have been delivered exclusively interpreting Article 230, as this article primarily deals with the administrative-jurisdictional framework rather than contested legal principles. 2. Related judicial observations have arisen in cases involving Articles 227, 239, and 241, which collectively govern judicial administration of Union territories. 3. The Delhi High Court Act, 1966 — enacted under Article 230 — was the basis for establishing a separate High Court for the NCT of Delhi (previously under Punjab & Haryana HC). 4. The Kerala HC (Extension of Jurisdiction to Lakshadweep) Act, 1967 — Parliament exercised Art. 230 power to extend Kerala HC jurisdiction to Lakshadweep. PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS (Parliamentary enactments under Art. 230): 1. Calcutta HC — Extended to Andaman & Nicobar Islands. 2. Madras HC — Extended to Puducherry. 3. Punjab & Haryana HC — Extended to Chandigarh. 4. Bombay HC — Extended to Dadra & Nagar Haveli and Daman & Diu. SCHOLARS & JURISTS: 1. D.D. Basu — Described Article 230 as the 'constitutional bridge' ensuring judicial access for Union territories lacking their own High Courts. 2. M.P. Jain — Noted that Article 230 ensures a unified and integrated judicial system across all territories of India, complementing the scheme under Articles 214, 231, and 241.