Article 230

Article 230 of the Constitution of India provides for the extension or exclusion of the jurisdiction of State High Courts to Union territories, thereby ensuring that the judicial system covers every part of the country, including territories under the direct administration of the Central Government. This article serves as an important mechanism for maintaining judicial accessibility, uniformity, and the rule of law in Union territories.

Constitutional Context and Objective

The Constitution of India envisages a unified judicial system where both States and Union territories have access to High Courts for the enforcement of legal rights and for the administration of justice. Unlike States, Union territories are centrally administered regions under Article 239, and therefore, they do not always possess separate High Courts.
To address this structural difference, Article 230 empowers Parliament to determine the jurisdictional relationship between Union territories and existing State High Courts. It thus acts as a constitutional bridge, ensuring that residents of Union territories have the same access to justice as those in States.

Parliament’s Power under Article 230(1)

Clause (1) of Article 230 authorises Parliament to:

• Extend the jurisdiction of any State High Court to a Union territory; or
• Exclude such jurisdiction, thereby removing an existing High Court’s authority over that Union territory.

This provision gives Parliament exclusive power to define whether a Union territory will fall under the jurisdiction of an existing High Court or have a separate arrangement for judicial oversight. The decision depends on administrative convenience, population size, geographical location, and the volume of judicial business.
For instance, through parliamentary enactments, the jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court, the Bombay High Court, and the Kerala High Court has been extended to cover various Union territories at different times.

Jurisdiction of State High Courts over Union Territories

Clause (2) of Article 230 outlines the administrative and legislative framework governing the exercise of a High Court’s jurisdiction over Union territories. It consists of two key sub-clauses:

• Sub-clause (a): When a State High Court exercises jurisdiction over a Union territory, the State Legislature has no authority to alter or affect that jurisdiction. Only Parliament possesses the constitutional competence to make such changes.
• Sub-clause (b): In all matters concerning the High Court’s superintendence over subordinate courts (under Article 227) within the Union territory, any reference to the Governor in the Constitution shall be construed as a reference to the President of India.

This ensures that the High Court’s administrative control over subordinate courts in Union territories remains constitutionally aligned with central authority, reflecting the Union’s direct governance of these regions.

Practical Application and Legislative Implementation

The application of Article 230 has resulted in several High Courts exercising jurisdiction over both States and Union territories. Examples include:

• The Delhi High Court, which has jurisdiction over the National Capital Territory of Delhi.
• The Bombay High Court, whose jurisdiction extends to the Union territories of Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu.
• The Kerala High Court, which also serves the Union territory of Lakshadweep.
• The Calcutta High Court, which has jurisdiction over the Andaman and Nicobar Islands.
• The Madras High Court, which covers the Union territory of Puducherry.

These arrangements ensure that residents of Union territories have access to a robust judicial system without the need for separate High Courts in each territory.

Relationship with Other Constitutional Articles

Article 230 operates in conjunction with several other constitutional provisions that define the administrative and judicial framework for Union territories:

• Article 227: Empowers High Courts to exercise superintendence over subordinate courts within their jurisdiction.
• Article 239: Provides for the administration of Union territories by the President, acting through an appointed Administrator.
• Article 241: Enables Parliament to establish High Courts for Union territories or to extend existing High Court jurisdictions.

Together, these provisions create a coherent constitutional mechanism that integrates Union territories into the national judicial framework.

Legislative Context and Development

The implementation of Article 230 has been achieved through various Acts of Parliament. For example:

• The Delhi High Court Act, 1966, established a separate High Court for the Union territory of Delhi (now the National Capital Territory).
• The Andaman and Nicobar Islands (Extension of Jurisdiction of Calcutta High Court) Act, 1950, extended the jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court to the islands.
• The Kerala High Court (Extension of Jurisdiction to Lakshadweep) Act, 1967, extended the jurisdiction of the Kerala High Court to the Union territory of Lakshadweep.

These legislative measures exemplify Parliament’s power to adapt the judicial framework to the needs of individual territories while maintaining constitutional uniformity.

Judicial Interpretation

Although there are no landmark Supreme Court judgments exclusively interpreting Article 230, the judiciary has, in several related cases, reaffirmed the authority of Parliament in determining the jurisdictional arrangements of High Courts. The courts have also underscored the principle that such arrangements must ensure accessibility, efficiency, and fairness in the administration of justice across the Union territories.
In related contexts, judgments concerning the interpretation of Articles 227, 239, and 241 have highlighted the special status of Union territories and the constitutional necessity of maintaining judicial coherence between the central and regional judicial systems.

Practical Implications of Article 230

The implementation of Article 230 has several important practical consequences:

• Access to Justice: It ensures that residents of Union territories have equal access to judicial remedies through established High Courts.
• Administrative Efficiency: It avoids the need for creating separate High Courts for small Union territories, thus conserving administrative and financial resources.
• Uniform Legal Framework: It promotes consistency and uniformity in judicial decisions by linking Union territories with existing High Courts.
• Central Oversight: By making the President the constitutional authority in administrative matters under Article 227, it aligns judicial supervision in Union territories with central governance.

These implications reinforce the constitutional principle that the rule of law must extend uniformly across all parts of India, irrespective of their administrative classification.

Significance of Article 230

Article 230 plays a critical role in ensuring judicial integration and uniformity across India. Its significance may be summarised as follows:

• It preserves the federal balance by allowing Parliament to decide judicial arrangements for Union territories, thereby maintaining consistency in the justice system.
• It upholds the right to equal access to justice for all citizens, whether residing in States or Union territories.
• It demonstrates the flexibility of the Indian judicial framework, enabling Parliament to adapt jurisdictional boundaries to administrative realities.
• It strengthens the central oversight of judicial administration in Union territories while ensuring High Courts remain independent and effective.