The Constitution of India
Article 230
Extension of jurisdiction of High Courts to Union territories
(1) Parliament may by law extend the jurisdiction of a High Court to, or exclude the jurisdiction of a High Court from, any Union territory.
(2) Where the High Court of a State exercises jurisdiction in relation to a Union territory, —
(a) nothing in this Constitution shall be construed as empowering the Legislature of the State to increase, restrict or abolish that jurisdiction; and
(b) the reference in article 227 to the Governor shall, in relation to any rules, forms or tables for subordinate courts in that territory, be construed as a reference to the President.
Why this exists
Union territories generally do not have their own High Courts, so the Constitution needed a mechanism to attach them to a neighbouring State's High Court for judicial purposes. Since Union territories are administered directly by the Centre (often through the President), the framers ensured that control over judicial arrangements there stays with Parliament and the President rather than with any State legislature or Governor, preserving the Centre's direct authority over these territories.
Common misconceptions
- Myth: The State whose High Court serves a Union territory can control or limit that court's powers there.
Fact: Article 230(2)(a) explicitly blocks the State legislature from increasing, restricting, or abolishing that jurisdiction — only Parliament can do so. - Myth: The State Governor approves court rules for the Union territory just like for the rest of the State.
Fact: Article 230(2)(b) substitutes the President for the Governor when it comes to rules for subordinate courts in that Union territory.