A common High Court for two or more states can be established by
- (a)a law passed by the Parliament
- (b)an order of the Supreme Court of India
- (c)an order of the President of India
- (d)an amendment to the Constitution of India
Correct — A, a law passed by the Parliament. Article 231 of the Constitution empowers Parliament to establish, by law, a common High Court for two or more States (or for States and a Union Territory). It is therefore an Act of Parliament — not a Supreme Court order, a presidential order, or a constitutional amendment — that creates a common High Court. The Punjab and Haryana High Court, serving both States and the Union Territory of Chandigarh, is a working example.
- (b)an order of the Supreme Court of India — The Supreme Court adjudicates disputes; it has no power to create High Courts — that is a legislative act under Article 231.
- (c)an order of the President of India — A presidential order cannot establish a common High Court; Article 231 vests this power in Parliament by law.
- (d)an amendment to the Constitution of India — No constitutional amendment is required — Article 231 already lets ordinary parliamentary legislation set up a common High Court.
Article 214 mandates a High Court for each State, but Article 231 lets Parliament, by ordinary law, establish one common High Court for two or more States or Union Territories. Several such shared courts exist — for example, the Punjab and Haryana High Court and the erstwhile Guwahati High Court that served several north-eastern states.
The trap is over-formalising the process — assuming it needs a constitutional amendment or a presidential order. In fact a simple Act of Parliament suffices under Article 231.
- Article 214: there shall be a High Court for each State.
- Article 231: Parliament may by law establish a common High Court for two or more States or Union Territories.
- The Punjab and Haryana High Court serves Punjab, Haryana and the Union Territory of Chandigarh.
- High Court judges are appointed by the President under Article 217, but the court itself is established by Parliament.
- Thinking a constitutional amendment or presidential order is required.
- Confusing establishment of the court (by Parliament) with appointment of its judges (by the President).
A direct constitutional-provision question — recall that Article 231 vests this power in Parliament by law.
Consider the following statements : 1. There are 25 High Courts in India 2. Punjab, Haryana and the Union Territory of Chandigarh have a common High Court. 3. National Capital Territory of Delhi has a High Court of its own. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
- (a) 2 and 3
- (b) 1 and 2
- (c) 1, 2 and 3
- (d) 3 only
Answer(a) 2 and 3
Same provision — common High Courts under Article 231. UPSC tests that Punjab, Haryana and Chandigarh share a High Court and Delhi has its own; this NDA item tests who can establish such a common High Court (Parliament by law).
- practice — not a real PYQ
A common High Court for two or more States is provided for under which Article?
- (a)Article 214
- (b)Article 226
- (c)Article 231
- (d)Article 241
Answer(c) Article 231 — it empowers Parliament to establish a common High Court by law.
- practice — not a real PYQ
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has jurisdiction over
- (a)Punjab only
- (b)Punjab and Haryana only
- (c)Punjab, Haryana and Chandigarh (Union Territory)
- (d)the whole of north India
Answer(c) Punjab, Haryana and Chandigarh (Union Territory) — a common High Court under Article 231.