Article 231

Article 231 of the Constitution of India provides the constitutional framework for the establishment of a common High Court for two or more States or for one or more States and one or more Union territories. The provision aims to promote judicial efficiency, administrative convenience, and resource optimisation by allowing multiple territories to share a single High Court while ensuring that justice remains uniform and accessible across their jurisdictions.

Historical Context and Constitutional Purpose

The idea of common High Courts dates back to the British colonial period, when the High Courts Act of 1861 allowed for a limited number of superior courts to exercise jurisdiction over large regions. After independence, the framers of the Constitution recognised that India’s diverse administrative units—States and Union territories—differed widely in size, population, and resources. Establishing separate High Courts for every small State or Union territory was neither practical nor economical.
Article 231 was therefore incorporated into the Constitution to allow Parliament to determine the creation of common High Courts wherever it deemed appropriate. This arrangement ensures that smaller States and Union territories have full judicial access without the burden of maintaining independent High Court establishments.

Key Provisions of Article 231

Article 231 comprises two main clauses, defining the authority to establish common High Courts and providing interpretative guidance for constitutional references.

Authority to Establish Common High Courts

Under Clause (1) of Article 231, Parliament is empowered to:

• Establish a common High Court for two or more States; or
• Establish a common High Court for one or more States together with one or more Union territories.

This power is exercised through a law enacted by Parliament, which specifies the territorial jurisdiction, administrative structure, and functioning of such a High Court.
The creation of a common High Court helps to:

• Avoid duplication of judicial infrastructure.
• Ensure equitable distribution of judicial resources.
• Enhance efficiency in case disposal by centralising judicial administration.

Interpretation of Constitutional References

Clause (2) of Article 231 provides interpretative clarity regarding references made in other constitutional provisions when a common High Court exists. These interpretative rules ensure administrative consistency and remove ambiguity in the application of related constitutional articles.
When a common High Court serves multiple States or Union territories:

1. References to the Governor in Article 217 (appointment and conditions of service of judges) are construed as references to the Governors of all States under the High Court’s jurisdiction.
2. In Article 227 (superintendence over subordinate courts), references to the Governor refer to the Governor of the State in which the concerned subordinate court is located.
3. In Articles 219 (oath of office) and 229 (rules regarding the High Court establishment), references to the State are taken to mean the State in which the principal seat of the High Court is situated.
4. If the principal seat of the common High Court is located in a Union territory, then:
   • References to the Governor are construed as references to the President.
   • References to the State Legislature and Public Service Commission are interpreted as references to Parliament and the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC).
   • The Consolidated Fund of the State is interpreted as the Consolidated Fund of India.

These interpretative adaptations ensure that administrative and financial governance of common High Courts remains constitutionally coherent.

Related Constitutional Articles

Several constitutional provisions are closely linked with Article 231, particularly those concerning the powers, composition, and administration of High Courts:

• Article 217: Appointment and service conditions of High Court judges.
• Article 219: Oath of office and secrecy of judges.
• Article 227: Power of superintendence over subordinate courts.
• Article 229: Appointment, service conditions, and expenses of High Court officers and servants.

Together, these articles define the structure and autonomy of the High Courts and ensure that the establishment of common High Courts does not compromise judicial independence or administrative integrity.

Legislative Framework and Establishment

The establishment of a common High Court under Article 231 requires an Act of Parliament. Such legislation determines the court’s jurisdiction, principal seat, benches, and administrative procedures.
Examples of such legislation include:

• The Punjab and Haryana High Court (Establishment) Act, 1947, creating a common High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana and the Union Territory of Chandigarh.
• The Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019, which provides for a common High Court for the Union territories of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh.

These enactments specify the administrative framework for shared judicial operations while ensuring equitable access to justice for residents of all constituent regions.

Examples of Common High Courts in India

Several common High Courts currently operate under Article 231:

• High Court of Punjab and Haryana: Serves both States of Punjab and Haryana, as well as the Union Territory of Chandigarh.
• High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh: Serves the Union territories following the 2019 reorganisation.
• Guwahati High Court: Initially served all the northeastern States; later, separate High Courts were created for some States, but it still serves Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram, and Arunachal Pradesh.

These arrangements demonstrate the Constitution’s flexibility in adapting judicial structures to evolving political and administrative needs.

Judicial Interpretation and Case Law

Although there are limited judicial pronouncements directly interpreting Article 231, several Supreme Court judgments have indirectly addressed issues of jurisdiction, administration, and coordination in common High Courts.

• K.K. Verma v. Union of India (1954): Clarified the constitutional validity of establishing common High Courts and emphasised that such arrangements promote administrative efficiency without diluting judicial independence.
• State of Bihar v. Bihar Rajya Bhumi Sudhar Samiti (2006): Examined the jurisdictional competence of High Courts serving multiple States and reaffirmed the principle that their decisions apply uniformly across all territories under their authority.
• State of U.P. v. Raj Narain (1975): Discussed the general powers and constitutional role of High Courts in maintaining checks on executive actions, principles equally applicable to common High Courts.

These decisions collectively underline the constitutional vision of a unified yet decentralised judicial system, ensuring justice is accessible to all citizens irrespective of regional boundaries.

Administrative and Judicial Implications

The establishment of common High Courts has several administrative and functional advantages:

• Efficient Resource Utilisation: Shared judicial infrastructure reduces costs and optimises manpower and facilities.
• Uniformity of Legal Interpretation: Common High Courts ensure consistent rulings across States or Union territories, reducing legal discrepancies.
• Increased Access to Justice: Residents of smaller territories benefit from a fully functional High Court without requiring the establishment of a separate institution.
• Improved Case Management: Common High Courts often distribute workload more effectively across multiple benches or jurisdictions.

However, challenges may also arise, such as:

• Administrative Coordination: Differences in State procedures and governance structures may complicate administrative management.
• Jurisdictional Conflicts: Disputes can occur over which bench has territorial competence in particular cases.
• Workload Distribution: Balancing caseloads among regions sharing the same High Court requires careful management.

Significance of Article 231

Article 231 plays a vital role in strengthening the federal and judicial architecture of India by enabling flexible judicial arrangements that serve both administrative and legal efficiency. Its significance lies in:

• Upholding the principle of equal access to justice across States and Union territories.
• Allowing Parliamentary flexibility to adapt the judicial system according to changing territorial and political realities.
• Promoting uniform legal interpretation across regions sharing a High Court.
• Ensuring cost-effective administration of justice while maintaining the independence of the judiciary