Article 241

Article 241 of the Constitution of India establishes the constitutional basis for the creation, jurisdiction, and functioning of High Courts in Union Territories. This provision ensures that Union Territories, despite their administrative differences from states, enjoy a comparable judicial framework that upholds the rule of law and constitutional governance.

Background and Constitutional Context

When the Constitution of India came into force in 1950, the judicial system was primarily designed for states. However, several regions—such as Delhi, Himachal Pradesh, and other territories directly administered by the Union—did not fall under the jurisdiction of any state. Article 241 was therefore introduced to fill this gap by granting Parliament the authority to establish High Courts for Union Territories or to extend the jurisdiction of existing State High Courts over them.
This article ensures a uniform judicial system across India, even in areas where the administrative structure differs from the federal pattern. It aligns with Article 214, which provides for High Courts in the states, thereby maintaining judicial parity and accessibility.

Empowerment of Parliament

Clause (1) of Article 241 empowers Parliament to establish a High Court for a Union Territory or to declare any existing court within a Union Territory to be a High Court for constitutional purposes. This provision gives Parliament wide flexibility to determine the judicial infrastructure of Union Territories based on administrative needs and caseload considerations.
The Parliament also has the power to modify the application of provisions governing High Courts in states (under Chapter V of Part VI of the Constitution) when applied to Union Territories. This ensures that necessary adjustments can be made to accommodate the smaller administrative scale or specific requirements of each territory.

Application of Chapter V of Part VI

Clause (2) of Article 241 provides that the provisions of Chapter V of Part VI, which ordinarily apply to High Courts in states, shall also apply to High Courts established for Union Territories. However, this application is subject to exceptions and modifications as Parliament may determine.
This clause effectively means that Union Territory High Courts function with similar constitutional status and powers as State High Courts, including:

• The power to issue writs under Article 226.
• Original, appellate, and supervisory jurisdiction.
• The same standards of appointment, tenure, and removal of judges.

Continuation of Jurisdiction

Clause (3) of Article 241 ensures judicial continuity by maintaining the jurisdiction of High Courts that exercised authority in Union Territories prior to the Constitution (Seventh Amendment) Act, 1956. This amendment reorganised states and Union Territories and confirmed that pre-existing judicial structures would remain valid until explicitly altered by Parliament.

Parliament’s Power Over Jurisdiction

Under Clause (4), Parliament has the authority to extend or exclude the jurisdiction of a State High Court to or from any Union Territory or a part thereof. This clause allows for flexible judicial arrangements, particularly for smaller Union Territories that may not have the volume of litigation necessary to justify a separate High Court.
For instance, the High Court of Bombay exercises jurisdiction over the Union Territories of Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu, while the Kerala High Court exercises jurisdiction over the Union Territory of Lakshadweep.

Legislative Framework and Establishment

The establishment of High Courts for Union Territories occurs through specific legislation enacted by Parliament. Two prominent examples are:

• The Delhi High Court Act, 1966, which established a separate High Court for the Union Territory of Delhi.
• The Puducherry (Jurisdiction of Courts) Act, 1966, which defines the jurisdictional linkage between Puducherry and the Madras High Court.

Other Union Territories continue to be served by neighbouring State High Courts, depending on administrative convenience and judicial efficiency.

Judicial Functions and Administrative Structure

High Courts for Union Territories operate similarly to State High Courts. The President of India appoints the judges, in consultation with the Chief Justice of India, the Governor (where applicable), and the Chief Justice of the concerned High Court.
These High Courts possess powers of:

• Judicial review, ensuring that laws and executive actions comply with constitutional mandates.
• Appellate jurisdiction, hearing appeals from subordinate courts within their territorial limits.
• Supervisory control over lower judiciary and administrative tribunals.

Case Law and Judicial Interpretation

Several judicial pronouncements have interpreted the scope and implications of Article 241:

• State of U.P. v. Raj Narain (1975) – This case reaffirmed Parliament’s legislative authority regarding the establishment and jurisdiction of High Courts.
• K. K. Verma v. Union of India (1954) – Addressed the powers of High Courts within Union Territories prior to the 1956 reorganisation.
• Union of India v. R. C. Gupta (1970) – Clarified the applicability of High Court jurisdiction in Union Territories and emphasised uniformity of judicial powers.

These cases collectively underline the Supreme Court’s view that the judicial framework of Union Territories must conform to the same constitutional principles that govern State High Courts.

Amendments and Evolution

The Constitution (Seventh Amendment) Act, 1956, was a turning point in shaping Article 241. It replaced older provisions that distinguished between Part B and Part C states with a unified approach towards Union Territories. Later constitutional amendments and reorganisation acts have further defined the relationship between Union Territories and State High Courts, especially after the creation or merger of new territories.

Challenges and Issues

Despite its clarity, Article 241 faces certain practical challenges, such as:

• Jurisdictional overlaps between State High Courts and Union Territory High Courts.
• Administrative constraints in smaller Union Territories lacking infrastructure for independent judicial systems.
• Backlog of cases, particularly in territories served by distant High Courts.

These challenges often spark debates regarding the creation of additional High Courts or benches to improve access to justice.

Current Status and Significance

As of 2023, Delhi and Puducherry have separate High Courts, while other Union Territories come under the jurisdiction of nearby State High Courts. For instance:

• Chandigarh falls under the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
• Jammu and Kashmir, and Ladakh share a common High Court.
• Andaman and Nicobar Islands are under the jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court.