Constitution of India
Article 241: High Courts for Union territories
Part VIII — The Union Territories
Clause (1)
WHAT IT SAYS: Parliament may by law constitute a High Court for a Union territory or declare any court in such territory to be a High Court for all or any constitutional purposes. WHAT IT MEANS: Parliament alone has the power to create a new High Court for a UT or elevate an existing court — e.g., Delhi High Court was created via Delhi High Court Act, 1966. KEY DOCTRINE: Doctrine of Parliamentary Sovereignty over UT judicial infrastructure — Parliament, not the executive, decides the judicial setup of UTs.
Clause (2)
WHAT IT SAYS: The provisions of Chapter V of Part VI (Articles 214–231, governing State High Courts) shall apply to every UT High Court under Clause (1), subject to modifications or exceptions Parliament may provide by law. WHAT IT MEANS: UT High Courts enjoy the same constitutional status, powers (writ jurisdiction under Art. 226, superintendence under Art. 227), and judicial standards as State High Courts, but Parliament can tailor specific rules for UT-specific needs. KEY DOCTRINE: Doctrine of Parity — UT High Courts are constitutionally at par with State High Courts unless Parliament explicitly modifies their functioning.
Clause (3)
WHAT IT SAYS: Every High Court exercising jurisdiction over a Union territory immediately before the commencement of the Constitution (Seventh Amendment) Act, 1956, shall continue to exercise such jurisdiction after that commencement, subject to the Constitution and appropriate Legislature. WHAT IT MEANS: This is a transitional/continuity clause — it preserved the jurisdiction of existing High Courts over UTs during the 1956 States Reorganisation, preventing a judicial vacuum. KEY DOCTRINE: Doctrine of Judicial Continuity — existing jurisdictional arrangements survive constitutional reorganisation until Parliament explicitly alters them.
Clause (4)
WHAT IT SAYS: Nothing in this article derogates from Parliament's power to extend or exclude the jurisdiction of a State High Court to, or from, any Union territory or part thereof. WHAT IT MEANS: Parliament retains overriding flexibility to assign any UT to any State High Court's jurisdiction — e.g., Lakshadweep under Kerala HC, Chandigarh under Punjab & Haryana HC, Dadra & Nagar Haveli under Bombay HC. KEY DOCTRINE: Doctrine of Flexible Jurisdiction — Parliament can redraw judicial boundaries for UTs at any time without constitutional amendment.
Constitutional Inspiration
SOURCE(S): 1. British India — Government of India Act, 1935, Sections 219–229 (High Courts for Provinces) Original provision: The Crown could establish and reorganise High Courts for provinces under British administration. What India kept: The power to constitute High Courts for centrally administered territories, vested now in Parliament instead of the Crown. INDIA'S SPECIFIC ADAPTATIONS: 1. Parliament (not Executive) empowered — Unlike British India where the Crown created High Courts by Letters Patent, India vested this power in Parliament to ensure democratic accountability. 2. Application of Part VI provisions to UT HCs — India ensured UT High Courts have constitutional parity with State HCs (writ jurisdiction, independence), which did not exist for Crown Courts in Chief Commissioner's Provinces. 3. Flexible jurisdiction model — India uniquely allowed Parliament to extend State HC jurisdiction to UTs, accommodating the diverse sizes and needs of Union Territories — an original Indian adaptation for its asymmetric federal structure.
Constituent Assembly Debate
DEBATED ON: 2 August 1949 (first adoption), 16 October 1949 (minor amendment) — CAD Volume IX KEY SPEAKERS: 1. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar (Chairman, Drafting Committee) — Introduced Draft Article 213A as a new insertion because no provision existed for High Courts in Part C States (centrally administered areas). MAJOR DISAGREEMENTS: 1. No substantive disagreement — The article was adopted without significant debate on 2 August 1949. 2. Minor amendment on 16 October 1949 — A Drafting Committee member moved to substitute 'for the purposes of this Constitution' with 'for all or any of the purposes of this Constitution' in Clause (1), giving Parliament greater flexibility. Adopted without much debate. FINAL OUTCOME: Draft Article 213A was adopted on 2 August 1949; the minor textual amendment was adopted on 16 October 1949. The article was later substantially amended by the Constitution (Seventh Amendment) Act, 1956 to replace 'Part C States' with 'Union territories'. NOTE: The article was NOT part of the original Draft Constitution of 1948. It was introduced during the second reading as a new article by Ambedkar to fill the gap regarding judicial provision for centrally administered territories.
Landmark Judgments
LANDMARK JUDGMENTS: 1. Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. Union of India (2018) — 5-Judge Constitution Bench held Delhi has a 'sui generis' status; clarified governance relationship between elected UT government and Lieutenant Governor, with implications for UT judicial framework under Art. 239AA. 2. Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. Union of India (2023) — SC held Delhi government has legislative and executive power over 'services' except police, public order, and land; reinforced cooperative federalism for UTs with legislatures. 3. Union of India v. R.C. Gupta (1970) — Clarified applicability of High Court jurisdiction in Union Territories and emphasised uniformity of judicial powers across States and UTs. 4. State of U.P. v. Raj Narain (1975) — Reaffirmed Parliament's legislative authority regarding establishment and jurisdiction of High Courts, relevant to Art. 241's scheme. NOTABLE DISSENTS (if any): 1. Justice Ashok Bhushan in NCT Delhi v. UoI (2019 split verdict) — Held 'services' fell outside NCTD's purview; later overruled by the 2023 Constitution Bench. SCHOLARS & JURISTS: 1. D.D. Basu — Noted that Art. 241 ensures judicial uniformity across the Union by extending the High Court framework to territories lacking statehood. 2. M.P. Jain — Observed that Art. 241 reflects the Constitution's pragmatic approach to judicial administration, allowing Parliament maximum flexibility to tailor courts to the unique needs of each Union Territory.