How the territorial jurisdiction of Indian High Courts is fixed, how Article 231 allows a common High Court for several states, and how it can change.
At a glance
The geographical area over which a High Court can exercise judicial and supervisory power, ordinarily a state.
Article 231 lets Parliament establish a common High Court for two or more states, or states plus a Union territory.
Kihoto Hollohon v. Zachilhu (1993) — a jurisdiction bar under the Tenth Schedule struck down for bypassing Article 368(2)'s special procedure.
A High Court's writ power under Article 226 only operates within its own territorial jurisdiction, unlike the Supreme Court's all-India Article 32 power.
HC territorial jurisdiction refers to the geographical area over which a particular High Court can exercise its judicial powers — ordinarily coextensive with a state, but the Constitution allows this arrangement to be reshaped. Article 231 lets Parliament create a single High Court for two or more states, and treaties or boundary adjustments can shift which court a given area falls under. Understanding this framework also clarifies how far a High Court's writ powers under Article 226 reach, and how that differs from the Supreme Court's writ jurisdiction under Article 32.
Constitutional Basis
Each state is ordinarily meant to have its own High Court, but Article 231 carves out an exception: "Notwithstanding anything contained in the preceding provisions of this Chapter, Parliament may by law establish a common High Court for two or more States or for two or more States and a Union territory." This is how India ended up with common High Courts serving multiple states and Union territories instead of a strict one-state-one-court model.
When a common High Court is established under Article 231, the Constitution adjusts certain cross-references so the arrangement still functions cleanly. The reference to the "Governor" in Article 227 — regarding rules, forms, or tables for subordinate courts — is read as a reference to the Governor of whichever state the subordinate courts concerned are actually situated in. Similarly, references to "the State" in Articles 219 and 229 (which deal with matters like the oath of High Court judges and staff of the High Court) are construed as references to the state where the High Court has its principal seat. Where that principal seat lies in a Union territory, corresponding adjustments are made for the Governor, Public Service Commission, Legislature, and Consolidated Fund that would otherwise apply.
Superintendence and the Territorial Limits of Article 227
Article 227 gives every High Court superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories in which it exercises jurisdiction — it can call for returns, frame rules on practice and procedure, and settle tables of fees for subordinate courts within that territory. This power is itself bounded by the High Court's territorial jurisdiction: a High Court's supervisory reach stops exactly where its notified territorial jurisdiction stops, which is why the Article 231 adjustment to who counts as the relevant "Governor" matters in a multi-state High Court.
During the Constituent Assembly debates, members pressed for High Courts to retain and expand this kind of superintendence. Speakers recalled that the Government of India Act, 1935 had stripped High Courts of certain superintendence powers over subordinate courts that they had earlier possessed, and argued this defect needed correcting so litigants across a High Court's full territorial jurisdiction — not just in presidency towns — could get effective remedies.
When Territorial Jurisdiction Changes: The India–Bangladesh Example
Territorial jurisdiction is not static — it can move when India's own boundaries are redrawn by treaty. The 2011 Protocol to the 1974 India–Bangladesh Land Boundary Agreement provided for demarcating the boundary through sectors in West Bengal, Meghalaya, Tripura, and Assam, based on jointly surveyed maps of adversely possessed land finalised between December 2010 and August 2011. The Protocol specified that the relevant strip maps would be printed and signed by plenipotentiaries, and that transfer of territorial jurisdiction would be completed simultaneously with the exchange of enclaves — 111 Indian enclaves in Bangladesh and 51 Bangladeshi enclaves in India, exchanged as per jointly verified cadastral maps. Once such a transfer of territory takes effect, the ordinary judicial and administrative machinery — including which High Court has territorial jurisdiction over the transferred area — shifts accordingly.
Writ Jurisdiction Across Territory: High Courts vs the Supreme Court
A High Court's territorial jurisdiction also defines the reach of its writ powers under Article 226, and this differs in scope from the Supreme Court's writ powers under Article 32. Article 32 confines the Supreme Court to issuing writs for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights. Article 226 permits a High Court to issue writs — habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, and quo warranto — not only for enforcing Fundamental Rights but for any other purpose, i.e., for any legal injury or illegality within its territorial jurisdiction.
| Feature | Supreme Court (Article 32) | High Courts (Article 226) |
|---|---|---|
| Purpose of writs | Enforcement of Fundamental Rights only | Fundamental Rights AND any other legal purpose |
| Territorial reach | All of India | Limited to the High Court's own territorial jurisdiction |
| Origin of power | Guaranteed as a Fundamental Right itself | Constitutional power, not itself a Fundamental Right |
This distinction has historical roots. In the Constituent Assembly, K.M. Munshi pointed out that only the High Courts of Calcutta, Bombay, and Madras — as inheritors of the King's Bench Division's jurisdiction — could issue Prerogative Writs, and only within the original jurisdiction of those three cities. Other High Courts had no such power at all. The framers' intent, as Munshi put it, was that every High Court in India should have the same writ power within its own territorial jurisdiction, ending this uneven, city-limited arrangement inherited from the colonial era.
Bar of Jurisdiction: A Related Limit
A related but distinct concept is a statutory or constitutional bar on jurisdiction, as opposed to territorial jurisdiction proper. In Kihoto Hollohon v. Zachilhu (1993), the Supreme Court held that Paragraph 7 of the Tenth Schedule — which barred courts from any jurisdiction over a member's disqualification for defection — was invalid because it effectively curtailed the jurisdiction of the High Courts and Supreme Court under Articles 226 and 32 without following the special ratification procedure required by the proviso to Article 368(2) for amendments affecting the judiciary.
UPSC Relevance
Prelims: Focus on Article 231 (common High Court for two or more states), the writ-purpose distinction between Article 32 and Article 226, and the five writs with their effects. Note that only three High Courts historically had Prerogative Writ powers before the Constitution equalised this.
Mains (GS2): Discuss how the territorial organisation of India's judiciary balances uniformity (a single integrated judicial system, per Ambedkar) with administrative practicality (common High Courts for smaller states/UTs). Territory transfer under international boundary agreements as a trigger for jurisdictional change is a useful applied example.
FAQ
Q1. What is the territorial jurisdiction of a High Court? It is the specific geographical area — usually a state, sometimes multiple states and Union territories together — over which a High Court can exercise its judicial and supervisory powers.
Q2. Can one High Court serve more than one state? Yes. Article 231 allows Parliament to establish, by law, a common High Court for two or more states, or for two or more states and a Union territory.
Q3. Does a High Court's writ jurisdiction extend beyond its territory? No. Article 226 writ powers operate within the High Court's own territorial jurisdiction, unlike the Supreme Court's Article 32 powers, which apply across all of India.
Q4. How can a High Court's territorial jurisdiction change? Through a parliamentary law reorganising states or establishing/dissolving a common High Court, or through territorial changes such as an international boundary agreement that transfers land (and hence jurisdiction) between countries.
Q5. Did all High Courts always have the power to issue writs? No. Before the Constitution, only the Calcutta, Bombay, and Madras High Courts could issue Prerogative Writs, and only within their original (city) jurisdiction. The Constitution extended this power to every High Court across its full territorial jurisdiction.
Quick Revision
- Article 231: Parliament may establish a common High Court for 2+ states, or states + a UT.
- Article 227: superintendence over courts/tribunals within the High Court's own territory.
- Article 226: writs for Fundamental Rights AND any other purpose, but only within the HC's territorial jurisdiction.
- Article 32: writs for Fundamental Rights only, but applicable across all of India.
- Pre-Constitution, only Calcutta, Bombay, Madras HCs had Prerogative Writ power (King's Bench Division legacy).
- India–Bangladesh Land Boundary Agreement (2011 Protocol) illustrates territorial jurisdiction shifting via treaty-based boundary transfer.
- Kihoto Hollohon v. Zachilhu (1993): a bar on court jurisdiction (Tenth Schedule, Para 7) was struck down for lacking the special amendment procedure under Article 368(2) proviso.
Sources
- Constitution of India, Article 231 — legislative.gov.in
- Constitution of India, Article 226 and Article 227 — legislative.gov.in
- Constituent Assembly Debates — official records
- Kihoto Hollohon v. Zachilhu, 1992 Supp (2) SCC 651 — Supreme Court of India
- Protocol to the 1974 India–Bangladesh Land Boundary Agreement, 2011 — Ministry of External Affairs
Further Reference
For deeper reading on this topic and the wider polity syllabus, these standard works are recommended:
- M. Laxmikanth, Indian Polity (McGraw Hill) — the standard UPSC handbook.
- D.D. Basu, Introduction to the Constitution of India (LexisNexis) — authoritative constitutional-law treatment.
- The Constitution of India — Bare Act — the official text.
Constitutional provisions
Parliament may by law establish a common High Court for two or more states, or states and a Union territory.
High Courts issue writs for Fundamental Rights and any other legal purpose, within their own territorial jurisdiction.
Superintendence of a High Court over all courts and tribunals within its territorial jurisdiction.
Supreme Court issues writs for enforcement of Fundamental Rights only, applicable across all of India.