Assertion (A) : In India, every State has a High Court in its territory. Reason (R) : The Constitution of India provides for a High Court in each State.

1. The Integrated Judicial System in India (basic)

Welcome to our first step in mastering the High Courts! To understand how High Courts function, we must first look at the 'big picture': India’s Integrated Judicial System. In many federal countries, like the United States, there is a dual system of courts where federal laws are handled by federal courts and state laws by state courts. India, however, intentionally chose a different path. Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), Salient Features of the Constitution, p.30 The Indian Constitution establishes a single, unified hierarchy of courts. Think of it as a pyramid: the Supreme Court stands at the apex, followed by the High Courts at the state level, and the Subordinate Courts (district and lower courts) at the base. This integrated structure means that this single system of courts enforces both Central (Union) laws and State laws. This was designed by our founding fathers to prevent 'diversities in remedial procedure' and ensure a uniform application of justice across the country. Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), Centre-State Relations, p.151 While the High Court is the highest judicial body within a state, it is not an independent silo. It functions under the Supreme Court within the national hierarchy. Similarly, district and lower courts are called 'subordinate' precisely because they operate under the supervision and administrative control of their respective High Courts. Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), Subordinate Courts, p.363. Furthermore, though Article 214 states there shall be a High Court for each state, Parliament has the power to establish a common High Court for two or more states or Union Territories, as seen with the common High Court for Punjab and Haryana. Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), High Court, p.353

Comparison of Judicial Systems

Feature	Indian Integrated System	US Dual System
Structure	Single hierarchy (Pyramid)	Two separate sets of courts
Law Enforcement	One set of courts for both Central & State laws	Federal courts for federal laws; State courts for state laws

Sources: Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), Salient Features of the Constitution, p.30; Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), Centre-State Relations, p.151; Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), High Court, p.353; Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), Subordinate Courts, p.363

2. Constitutional Framework of High Courts (basic)

In the judicial hierarchy of our country, the High Court stands as the highest judicial authority at the state level. The constitutional foundation for these courts is laid out in Articles 214 to 231 within Part VI of the Constitution. Initially, the framers intended a straightforward structure: Article 214 explicitly states that there shall be a High Court for each State Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), Chapter 34, p. 353. However, as the administrative needs of our Union evolved, this "one-state, one-court" rule was made more flexible.

The turning point came with the Seventh Amendment Act of 1956. This amendment authorized the Parliament to establish a common High Court for two or more states, or for two or more states and a union territory Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), Chapter 34, p. 353. Because of this legal flexibility, we currently have 25 High Courts serving 28 states and 8 Union Territories. It is a common misconception that every state must have its own physically distinct High Court within its borders; in reality, several states share a single institution.

Feature	Provisions & Context
Primary Article	Article 214 (Establishment of High Courts)
Legislative Power	Parliament has the power to create common High Courts Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), Chapter 34, p. 353.
Territorial Jurisdiction	Co-terminus with the territory of the State or the combined territories of shared States/UTs.

Regarding their territorial jurisdiction, the "reach" of a High Court is typically co-terminus with the boundaries of the state it serves. For a common High Court, this reach extends across the combined boundaries of all the states and union territories under its wing Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), Chapter 34, p. 353. For example, the Gauhati High Court has jurisdiction over multiple north-eastern states, ensuring that judicial administration remains robust even when shared.

Sources: Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), Chapter 34: High Court, p.353; Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), Chapter 34: High Court, p.701

3. Appointment and Independence of HC Judges (intermediate)

To understand the High Court (HC) structure, we must first look at how judges arrive at the bench and how they are protected from political pressure. While the High Court is the highest judicial body in a State, the power to appoint its judges does not rest with the Governor, but with the President of India. This ensures a unified judicial standard across the country. According to Article 217, the Chief Justice of a High Court is appointed by the President after consulting the Chief Justice of India (CJI) and the Governor of the state concerned Laxmikanth, High Court, p.354. For other judges, the Chief Justice of the specific High Court is also consulted. In the case of a common High Court for two or more states, the Governors of all involved states must be consulted.
The appointment process has evolved through the famous 'Judges Cases'. Originally, 'consultation' did not mean 'agreement.' However, the Supreme Court later ruled that the CJI’s opinion is binding. Today, we follow the Collegium System: for High Court appointments, the CJI must consult a collegium of the two senior-most judges of the Supreme Court Laxmikanth, High Court, p.354. Although the government tried to replace this with the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) via the 99th Amendment, the Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional in 2015, reverting to the Collegium system to safeguard judicial independence.
The qualifications for becoming an HC judge are specific: one must be a citizen of India and have either held a judicial office for ten years or been an advocate of a High Court for ten years Laxmikanth, High Court, p.354. Interestingly, there is a key difference between the Supreme Court and the High Court here:

Feature	Supreme Court Judge	High Court Judge
Distinguished Jurist	Can be appointed if the President deems so.	No provision for appointment as a distinguished jurist.
Minimum Age	Not prescribed.	Not prescribed.

Finally, to ensure these judges act without fear or favor, the Constitution provides several Independence safeguards. Their salaries and allowances are charged on the Consolidated Fund of the State (meaning they aren't voted upon by the legislature), their conduct cannot be discussed in the State Legislature (except during removal proceedings), and they have the power to punish for contempt of court to maintain their authority Laxmikanth, High Court, p.356.

Sources: Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), High Court, p.354-356

4. Writ Jurisdiction: Article 226 vs Article 32 (intermediate)

To understand the power of our judiciary, we must look at the 'tools' they use to protect our rights: the Writs. Both the Supreme Court and the High Courts possess the power to issue five specific writs—Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Prohibition, Certiorari, and Quo-Warranto Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), Chapter 7, p.98. However, the scope and nature of this power vary significantly between Article 32 (Supreme Court) and Article 226 (High Court). From a first-principles perspective, the most striking difference is the breadth of purpose. While the Supreme Court can only issue writs to enforce Fundamental Rights, the High Courts have a much wider ambit. Under Article 226, a High Court can issue these writs for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights and "for any other purpose," which means the protection of ordinary legal rights Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), Chapter 34, p.358. This makes the High Court's writ jurisdiction legally broader than that of the Supreme Court. Another critical distinction lies in the nature of the remedy. Article 32 is itself a Fundamental Right; thus, the Supreme Court is the guarantor and defender of these rights and generally cannot refuse to exercise its jurisdiction. In contrast, the power under Article 226 is discretionary. A High Court may refuse to issue a writ if it believes the petitioner has an alternative, adequate legal remedy Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), Chapter 7, p.99.

Feature	Article 32 (Supreme Court)	Article 226 (High Court)
Purpose	Only Fundamental Rights.	Fundamental Rights + Ordinary Legal Rights.
Territorial Scope	Whole of India.	Respective State or where the cause of action arises.
Nature of Power	Mandatory (it is an FR itself).	Discretionary (the court may refuse).

Sources: Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), Chapter 7: Fundamental Rights, p.98-99; Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), Chapter 34: High Court, p.358

5. Subordinate Judiciary and District Courts (intermediate)

In the Indian judicial pyramid, the Subordinate Judiciary serves as the foundational layer, ensuring that justice is accessible at the grassroots level. These courts are called "subordinate" because they function under the administrative and judicial supervision of the High Court of the respective state. This hierarchy is not merely for organizational ease; it is a constitutional design to ensure a unified and independent judicial system across the country. According to M. Laxmikanth, Indian Polity (7th ed.), Chapter 36, p.363, the state judiciary consists of a high court and a hierarchy of lower courts that function at the district level and below.

The constitutional provisions governing these courts are found in Articles 233 to 237 (Part VI). A critical aspect of these provisions is the independence of the judiciary from the executive. For instance, the appointment of a District Judge is made by the Governor of the state, but only in consultation with the High Court. This ensures that political influence is minimized in judicial appointments. To be eligible for the post of a District Judge, a candidate must meet specific criteria: they should not already be in the service of the Union or the State, they must have been an advocate or a pleader for at least seven years, and they must be recommended by the High Court for the appointment M. Laxmikanth, Indian Polity (7th ed.), Chapter 36, p.363.

Below the District Judge, the organizational structure and nomenclature can vary slightly from state to state because these details are laid down by the individual State governments. However, a general hierarchy exists:

Level	Civil Side	Criminal Side
District Level	District Judge	Sessions Judge
Sub-District Level	Civil Judge (Senior Division)	Chief Judicial Magistrate
Lower Level	Civil Judge (Junior Division) / Munsiff	Judicial Magistrate (Second Class)

While the District Judge handles civil cases, the same officer is called a Sessions Judge when presiding over criminal matters. They possess the power to impose any sentence authorized by law, including capital punishment (though a death sentence must be confirmed by the High Court before execution) M. Laxmikanth, Indian Polity (7th ed.), Chapter 36, p.364.

Sources: M. Laxmikanth, Indian Polity (7th ed.), Chapter 36: Subordinate Courts, p.363; M. Laxmikanth, Indian Polity (7th ed.), Chapter 36: Subordinate Courts, p.364

6. Common High Courts and Shared Jurisdictions (exam-level)

Hello! Let’s dive into a fascinating aspect of our judicial architecture. Originally, the Constitution envisioned a very straightforward setup: Article 214 declares that "there shall be a High Court for each State." However, as the administrative needs of a growing nation evolved—especially with the reorganization of states—it became clear that having a physically separate High Court for every single state might not always be practical or efficient D. D. Basu, THE HIGH COURT, p.359.

To address this, the 7th Amendment Act of 1956 introduced a vital layer of flexibility. It authorized Parliament to establish a common High Court for two or more states, or for two or more states and a Union Territory (UT) under Article 231. This means that while every state is entitled to the jurisdiction of a High Court, that court doesn't necessarily have to be located exclusively within its own borders. Today, India has 25 High Courts, and several of them serve multiple administrative units M. Laxmikanth, High Court, p.353.

The territorial jurisdiction of such a common High Court is co-terminus with the combined territories of the states and UTs it serves. For instance, the Punjab and Haryana High Court (located in Chandigarh) serves both those states as well as the UT of Chandigarh. Similarly, the Gauhati High Court has one of the widest reaches, serving four northeastern states: Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram, and Arunachal Pradesh M. Laxmikanth, High Court, p.353.

Feature	Single State High Court	Common High Court
Constitutional Basis	Article 214	Article 231 (via 7th Amendment)
Jurisdiction	Limited to one State territory	Combined territories of 2+ States/UTs
Examples	Patna HC, Allahabad HC	Bombay HC, Calcutta HC, Gauhati HC

When it comes to Union Territories, Parliament holds the power to extend the jurisdiction of a state High Court to a UT or exclude it. Currently, most UTs are linked to neighboring state High Courts. For a long time, Delhi was the only UT with its own separate High Court (since 1966), though today Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh also share a common High Court M. Laxmikanth, High Court, p.353.

Sources: Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth, Chapter 34: High Court, p.353; Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu, THE HIGH COURT, p.359

7. Solving the Original PYQ (exam-level)

This question perfectly synthesizes two fundamental concepts you have just mastered: the Constitutional Mandate for the judiciary and the Parliamentary Power to modify it. While Article 214 of the Constitution explicitly states that "there shall be a High Court for each State," you must reconcile this with the 7th Constitutional Amendment Act of 1956. This amendment provides the building block for flexibility, allowing Parliament to establish a common High Court for two or more states or union territories. This distinction between the ideal provision and the actual administrative setup is exactly what UPSC is testing here.

To arrive at the correct answer (D), we must evaluate the two statements independently. The Reason (R) is true because it reflects the de jure (legal) position under Article 214. However, the Assertion (A) is false because of the word "territory." In practice, several states share a High Court located in a single city—for instance, Punjab and Haryana share a court in the Union Territory of Chandigarh, and the Gauhati High Court serves multiple North-Eastern states. Because not every state has a physical High Court building located strictly within its own geographical boundaries, the assertion fails the test of factual accuracy.

The common trap in this question lies in options (A) and (B). Students often see the phrase "High Court for each state" and assume it must mean a physical building exists in every single state, leading them to mark the assertion as true. Always be wary of absolute qualifiers like "every" in UPSC Polity questions; they often signal an exception. As noted in Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth, the jurisdictional reach of High Courts is a favorite area for examiners to test whether you understand the difference between Constitutional provisions and Parliamentary statutes.