Constitution of India
Article 231: Establishment of a common High Court for two or more States
Part VI — The States (Chapter V — The High Courts in the States)
Clause (1)
WHAT IT SAYS: Parliament may by law establish a common High Court for two or more States, or for two or more States and a Union territory, notwithstanding any other provision in the Chapter on High Courts. WHAT IT MEANS: Parliament has overriding legislative power to create shared High Courts — e.g. Punjab & Haryana HC at Chandigarh, Gauhati HC for northeastern states. KEY DOCTRINE: Non-obstante power — the words 'Notwithstanding anything contained in the preceding provisions of this Chapter' override Article 214 (which mandates one HC per State).
Clause (2)(a)
WHAT IT SAYS: In Article 217, the reference to 'Governor of the State' shall be read as 'Governors of all the States' over which the common High Court exercises jurisdiction. WHAT IT MEANS: When appointing judges to a common HC, all Governors of the concerned States are consulted — no single state monopolises the appointment process. KEY DOCTRINE: Collective consultation doctrine — ensures multi-state representation in judicial appointments. NOTE ON 99th AMENDMENT: Clause 2(a) was omitted by the Constitution (99th Amendment) Act, 2014, s. 10 (w.e.f. 13-4-2015) as part of the NJAC scheme. However, the Supreme Court struck down the entire 99th Amendment in Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (2015), so Clause 2(a) stands restored to its original form.
Clause (2)(b)
WHAT IT SAYS: In Article 227, the reference to 'Governor' (regarding rules, forms or tables for subordinate courts) shall be read as the Governor of the State where the subordinate courts are located. WHAT IT MEANS: Superintendence over subordinate courts remains state-specific — each State's Governor handles rules for subordinate courts within that State, even under a common HC. KEY DOCTRINE: Territorial specificity principle — prevents one State's Governor from controlling another State's subordinate courts.
Clause (2)(c) and Proviso
WHAT IT SAYS: In Articles 219 (oath of office) and 229 (HC officers and expenses), 'State' means the State where the HC has its principal seat. Proviso: If the principal seat is in a Union territory, references to Governor, PSC, Legislature, and Consolidated Fund of the State are read as President, UPSC, Parliament, and Consolidated Fund of India respectively. WHAT IT MEANS: Administrative and financial governance of the common HC is anchored to where the HC's principal seat is located — and if that seat is in a UT, central institutions replace state counterparts. KEY DOCTRINE: Principal seat doctrine — the location of the HC's main seat determines which executive and financial authorities govern its administration.
Constitutional Inspiration
SOURCE(S): 1. Government of India Act, 1935 — Section 229 (Power to establish common courts for Provinces) Original provision: The Crown/Governor-General could establish courts with jurisdiction over multiple provinces. What India kept: Parliamentary power to create common High Courts for multiple States. 2. British High Courts Act, 1861 — Established a limited number of superior courts exercising jurisdiction over large regions in colonial India. Original provision: Three original High Courts (Calcutta, Bombay, Madras) served vast territories. What India kept: The practical model of shared judicial infrastructure for regions with lower caseloads. INDIA'S SPECIFIC ADAPTATIONS: 1. Power vested in PARLIAMENT (not Executive) — Democratic safeguard: prevents arbitrary executive merger of judicial establishments. 2. Detailed interpretive clauses [Cl. 2(a)-(c)] for multi-state governance — Needed because India's federal structure requires clarity on which Governor/State bears responsibility. 3. Special proviso for Union Territories — Recognises that UTs lack Governors, PSCs, and Legislatures, requiring central substitutes. 4. Non-obstante clause overriding Art. 214 — Ensures flexibility: Art. 214 mandates 'a High Court for each State', but Art. 231 creates an explicit exception.
Constituent Assembly Debate
DEBATED ON: The ORIGINAL draft Article 231 (which dealt with legislative powers, not common High Courts) was debated on 13 June 1949 (CAD Volume VIII). IMPORTANT NOTE: Article 231 in its PRESENT form was NOT debated in the Constituent Assembly. It was entirely substituted by the Constitution (Seventh Amendment) Act, 1956, s. 16, w.e.f. 1-11-1956. The original Articles 230, 231, and 232 were replaced by new Articles 230 and 231. KEY SPEAKERS (on the original draft Art. 231, 13 June 1949): 1. Shri T.T. Krishnamachari (Madras) — Moved amendment No. 2788 to delete clause (2) of draft Article 231. 2. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar — Moved an amendment to insert 'or Part III' after 'Part I', extending Parliament's power to Part III States (smaller princely states). 3. Shri A. Thanu Pillai (Travancore) — Argued that placing Part III States on the same footing as Part I States was a recent and unsettled idea. CONTEXT OF 7TH AMENDMENT SUBSTITUTION: 1. The States Reorganisation Act, 1956 redrew state boundaries on linguistic lines. 2. The Part A / Part B / Part C / Part D State classification was abolished. 3. New Article 231 was needed to allow Parliament to create common High Courts for the reorganised States and newly created Union Territories. FINAL OUTCOME: Original Articles 230, 231, 232 were substituted by new Articles 230 and 231 via s. 16 of the 7th Amendment Act, effective 1 November 1956.
Landmark Judgments
LANDMARK JUDGMENTS: 1. Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (2015) [Fourth Judges Case] — The SC struck down the 99th Amendment Act, 2014 (which had omitted Clause 2(a) of Art. 231 as part of NJAC). This restored the original Clause 2(a) and reaffirmed the Collegium system. Decided 4:1 by a Constitution Bench. 2. State of U.P. v. Raj Narain (1975) — Discussed the general constitutional role of High Courts in maintaining checks on executive actions, principles equally applicable to common High Courts under Art. 231. NOTE: There are limited judicial pronouncements DIRECTLY interpreting Article 231. Most jurisprudence around this article is indirect, arising from cases on High Court jurisdiction, judicial appointments, and State reorganisation. NOTABLE DISSENTS: 1. Justice J. Chelameswar in SCAORA v. Union of India (2015) — Dissented from the majority; held the 99th Amendment and NJAC were not unconstitutional, arguing the collegium system lacked transparency. PRACTICAL EXAMPLES OF COMMON HIGH COURTS: 1. Punjab and Haryana High Court — Serves Punjab, Haryana, and UT of Chandigarh. 2. Gauhati High Court — Serves Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram, and Arunachal Pradesh. 3. High Court of J&K and Ladakh — Serves both Union Territories after 2019 reorganisation. SCHOLARS & JURISTS: 1. M. Laxmikanth — Notes that while Art. 214 mandates a HC for each State, Art. 231 creates a parliamentary exception allowing common HCs, reflecting constitutional flexibility. 2. D.D. Basu — Observes that Art. 231 is a necessary corollary to the States Reorganisation, enabling judicial infrastructure to adapt to political and administrative reconfigurations.