The Bombay High Court does not have a bench at which one of the following places?

1. Constitutional Basis of High Courts (basic)

To understand the High Courts in India, we must first look at the integrated judicial system established by the Constitution. Unlike the federal structure of the United States, where federal courts handle federal laws and state courts handle state laws, India possesses a single, unified hierarchy of courts. As noted in Laxmikanth, M. Indian Polity, Salient Features of the Constitution, p.30, the Supreme Court stands at the apex, with High Courts functioning at the state level, followed by a hierarchy of subordinate courts. This single system is unique because it enforces both Central (Union) laws and State laws across its entire jurisdiction.

The constitutional foundation for High Courts is primarily located in Part VI of the Constitution, spanning Articles 214 to 231. While Article 214 originally envisioned a High Court for each state, administrative and territorial changes necessitated more flexibility. Consequently, the 7th Amendment Act of 1956 empowered Parliament to establish a common High Court for two or more states, or for two or more states and a Union Territory. This allows for efficient judicial administration, as seen in cases where one High Court serves multiple administrative units.

Feature	Indian Judicial System	USA Judicial System
Structure	Integrated (Single hierarchy)	Dual (Separate Federal & State hierarchies)
Law Enforcement	High Courts enforce both Central and State laws	State courts generally enforce only state-specific laws

The High Court occupies a pivotal position in the state's judicial administration. It is not merely a "state version" of the Supreme Court but is a Constitutional Court in its own right, endowed with the power to protect the fundamental rights of citizens and act as the guardian of the Constitution within its territorial limits. This independence is safeguarded by constitutional provisions that ensure High Courts can function without undue influence from the executive or legislature.

Sources: Laxmikanth, M. Indian Polity, Salient Features of the Constitution, p.30

2. Appointment and Conditions of Service of HC Judges (intermediate)

The appointment of High Court judges is a sophisticated process designed to ensure judicial independence while maintaining a system of checks and balances. According to Article 217 of the Constitution, every judge of a High Court is appointed by the President of India. However, this is not a discretionary power; it is exercised through a mandatory consultative process. For the appointment of the Chief Justice of a High Court, the President consults the Chief Justice of India (CJI) and the Governor of the state concerned. When appointing other judges, the Chief Justice of that particular High Court is also included in the consultation loop Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth, p.354.

The nature of this 'consultation' has evolved significantly through the Judges Cases. Originally, the executive held more sway, but since the Second Judges Case (1993), the Supreme Court has ruled that the CJI's opinion carries primacy and must be in 'conformity' with the appointment. This led to the Collegium System, where the CJI tenders advice after consulting two senior-most colleagues for High Court appointments Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth, p.633. Interestingly, while the President appoints them, the Governor of the state administers their oath or affirmation under Article 219 Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth, p.701.

Regarding the conditions of service, a judge holds office until the age of 62 years. They can resign by writing to the President or be removed by the President following a parliamentary address (the same procedure as a Supreme Court judge). A critical nuance for your preparation is the financial aspect: while their salaries and allowances are charged on the Consolidated Fund of the State, their pensions are charged on the Consolidated Fund of India. This ensures that the state executive cannot use financial pressure to influence a judge's retirement Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth, p.356.

Sources: Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth, High Court, p.354, 356, 701; Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth, Landmark Judgements, p.633

3. The Power of Writs: Article 226 (intermediate)

Article 226 of the Constitution is the powerhouse of the High Court's authority, providing it with the mandate to issue directions, orders, or writs—specifically Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Prohibition, Certiorari, and Quo-Warranto. While these terms might sound like complex Latin legalese, they are essentially tools that allow the court to protect individuals from the arbitrary actions of the state or lower authorities.

One of the most fascinating aspects of Indian constitutional law is that the High Court’s writ jurisdiction is actually wider than that of the Supreme Court. While the Supreme Court can only issue writs to enforce Fundamental Rights under Article 32, a High Court can issue them for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights as well as for "any other purpose"—which includes the enforcement of ordinary legal or statutory rights Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), Supreme Court, p.291. This makes the High Court a very accessible and versatile guardian for citizens dealing with administrative overreach.

However, there is a catch regarding the nature of this power. Unlike the Supreme Court, which is constituted as a guarantor and defender of Fundamental Rights (making its remedy mandatory), the remedy provided under Article 226 is discretionary. This means a High Court can refuse to exercise its writ jurisdiction if it believes the petitioner has an alternative, effective legal remedy available Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), Fundamental Rights, p.99. Historically, this power was a privilege of only the Calcutta, Bombay, and Madras High Courts, but since 1950, Article 226 has empowered every High Court across the country Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), Fundamental Rights, p.98.

Feature	Article 32 (Supreme Court)	Article 226 (High Court)
Scope	Narrower (Fundamental Rights only)	Wider (Fundamental Rights + Ordinary legal rights)
Nature of Remedy	Mandatory (Guarantor of rights)	Discretionary (May refuse if alternative exists)
Territorial Reach	Throughout India	Within its own territorial jurisdiction

Sources: Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), Supreme Court, p.291; Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), Fundamental Rights, p.99; Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), Fundamental Rights, p.98

4. Supervisory and Administrative Powers of High Courts (intermediate)

To understand the High Court's authority, we must look beyond its role in hearing appeals. The High Court acts as the custodian of justice within its state, possessing two distinct but overlapping types of authority: Supervisory and Administrative. This ensures that the entire judicial machinery of the state functions efficiently and stays within the limits of the law.

Under Article 227, the High Court exercises the Power of Superintendence. This is an incredibly broad power. It allows the High Court to keep a watchful eye on all courts and tribunals operating within its territorial jurisdiction. Crucially, this power is both administrative and judicial in nature. It means the High Court can intervene not just when a lower court makes a legal error that is appealable, but also to ensure the court is not acting outside its jurisdiction or violating the principles of natural justice. D. D. Basu, Introduction to the Constitution of India, p.365.

The administrative side of this power involves the 'management' of the state's judiciary. The High Court has the authority to:

• Call for returns (regular reports) from subordinate courts.
• Issue general rules and prescribe forms for regulating the practice and proceedings of such courts.
• Prescribe forms in which books, entries, and accounts are kept by the officers of any such courts.
• Settle fees allowed to the sheriff, attorneys, and clerks.

M. Laxmikanth, Indian Polity, p.360.

Furthermore, as a Court of Record under Article 215, the High Court’s proceedings are preserved for 'perpetual memory' and serve as binding precedents for subordinate courts. This status also grants it the administrative power to punish for contempt of itself, ensuring its authority is respected across the state hierarchy. M. Laxmikanth, Indian Polity, p.360.

Feature	Judicial Superintendence	Administrative Superintendence
Scope	Correcting legal errors and jurisdictional excesses.	Managing day-to-day functioning and rules.
Source	Article 227 (and Article 226 via Writs).	Articles 227, 229, and 235.
Target	Judgments and orders of lower courts/tribunals.	Staff, record-keeping, and transfers.

Sources: Introduction to the Constitution of India, The High Court, p.365; Indian Polity, High Court, p.360

5. Common High Courts and Multi-State Jurisdiction (exam-level)

In our constitutional scheme, the ideal starting point is Article 214, which mandates that 'there shall be a High Court for each State.' However, as India evolved through the States Reorganisation Act of 1956 and subsequent administrative needs, the logic of 'one state, one court' became impractical for smaller states and Union Territories (UTs). To address this, the 7th Constitutional Amendment Act (1956) empowered Parliament to establish a Common High Court for two or more states, or for two or more states and a Union Territory M. Laxmikanth, Indian Polity, High Court, p.353. Today, India operates with 25 High Courts. While most serve a single state, others have multi-state jurisdiction. Under Article 231, Parliament has the exclusive power to extend or exclude the jurisdiction of a High Court from any Union Territory D. D. Basu, Introduction to the Constitution of India, THE HIGH COURT, p.359. For instance, the Bombay High Court doesn't just serve Maharashtra; its reach extends to the state of Goa and the Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu. To ensure justice is accessible across such vast territories, High Courts often establish Permanent Benches (located away from the principal seat) or Circuit Benches (where judges sit temporarily). It is important to note the status of Union Territories in this structure. For a long time, Delhi was the only UT with its own independent High Court (established in 1966). Recently, the reorganisation of Jammu and Kashmir led to the creation of a common High Court for the UTs of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh M. Laxmikanth, Indian Polity, High Court, p.353. All other UTs are attached to the High Courts of neighboring states to ensure administrative efficiency.

High Court	Jurisdiction (States/UTs)	Principal Seat
Bombay	Maharashtra, Goa, Dadra & Nagar Haveli and Daman & Diu	Mumbai
Guwahati	Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram, Arunachal Pradesh	Guwahati
Punjab & Haryana	Punjab, Haryana, Chandigarh	Chandigarh
Calcutta	West Bengal, Andaman & Nicobar Islands	Kolkata

Sources: Indian Polity, High Court, p.353; Introduction to the Constitution of India, THE HIGH COURT, p.359

6. Understanding Seats and Benches of High Courts (exam-level)

In the administrative structure of the Indian judiciary, a High Court operates from a primary location known as its Principal Seat. This is where the Chief Justice of that High Court usually resides and where the main registry is located. However, to ensure that justice is accessible and affordable—following the principle of 'justice at the doorstep'—permanent or temporary branches are often established in other cities within the court's territorial jurisdiction. These are known as Benches. As noted in Indian Polity, High Court, p.360, while many High Courts like those in Kerala or Gujarat have a single seat, others with vast territories or multiple states under their wing maintain several benches.

The Bombay High Court, established in 1862, is a prime example of this multi-bench system. Its Principal Seat is in Mumbai, but its jurisdiction is expansive, covering the states of Maharashtra and Goa, along with the Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu. To serve these diverse regions effectively, it has three Permanent Benches: Nagpur and Aurangabad (in Maharashtra) and Panaji (the capital of Goa) Indian Polity, High Court, p.360. It is important to distinguish these from 'Circuit Benches,' which are temporary setups where judges sit for a few weeks a year. For instance, a new circuit bench was recently inaugurated at Kolhapur in August 2025 to serve six districts of Western Maharashtra.

Students often get confused by large, prominent cities that do not host a bench despite their legal importance. For example, Pune, despite being a major judicial hub, does not have its own bench of the Bombay High Court. Litigants from Pune must travel to the Principal Seat in Mumbai for High Court matters. Similarly, in Uttar Pradesh, while the Principal Seat is at Prayagraj (Allahabad), it maintains only one permanent bench at Lucknow Indian Polity, High Court, p.360.

High Court	Principal Seat	Permanent Benches
Bombay High Court	Mumbai	Nagpur, Aurangabad, Panaji
Allahabad High Court	Prayagraj	Lucknow
Madhya Pradesh High Court	Jabalpur	Gwalior, Indore

Sources: Indian Polity, High Court, p.360

7. Solving the Original PYQ (exam-level)

Now that you have mastered the constitutional provisions regarding High Court jurisdiction and the States Reorganisation Act of 1956, this question serves as a perfect application of those building blocks. The Bombay High Court is unique because its jurisdiction extends beyond a single state to include Maharashtra, Goa, and the Union Territories of Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu. To solve this, you must distinguish between the principal seat (the main headquarters) and its permanent benches, which are established to ensure that justice is geographically accessible to distant regions.

In your reasoning, remember that the Bombay High Court operates through its principal seat in Mumbai and three established permanent benches. Nagpur and Aurangabad serve the Vidarbha and Marathwada regions of Maharashtra, while the Panaji bench was established to cater to the state of Goa. While there has been a significant recent shift with the inauguration of a circuit bench in Kolhapur in August 2025, Pune continues to be served directly by the principal seat in Mumbai due to its relative geographic proximity. Therefore, (C) Pune is the correct answer as it does not host a bench of the High Court.

UPSC often uses Pune as a common trap because of its status as a major administrative, educational, and legal hub. It is easy to assume that a city of such importance would naturally have a bench. However, the administrative logic behind creating benches is decentralization; benches are typically placed in regions far from the capital to assist litigants who would otherwise face extreme travel burdens. Since Pune is well-connected to Mumbai, the judiciary maintains its jurisdiction under the principal seat rather than a separate bench. As noted in the Bombay High Court Official Website and reports from The Hindu, the jurisdictional map is strictly defined by these historical and statutory designations.