Judiciary – NDA Polity Notes

Why an Independent Judiciary?

A democracy without an independent judiciary is a democracy only in name. Parliament makes the laws; the Executive implements them: but who ensures that both stay within the boundaries the Constitution sets? The answer is the Judiciary. India’s courts are not merely interpreters of law: they are the guardians of the Constitution.

India has an integrated judicial system India has a single integrated hierarchy of courts from the Supreme Court at the apex down through High Courts to subordinate courts. Unlike some federal systems where State and Union courts are completely separate, India’s courts at every level interpret and apply both Union and State law.

For NDA, this chapter tests with precision across seven concept clusters: writs, judicial review, the Basic Structure Doctrine, impeachment grounds, SC jurisdiction, HC territorial jurisdiction, and SC judge appointments. Eleven questions across seventeen years have confirmed that the chapter rewards exact knowledge rather than approximate familiarity. The most consequential distinctions are: certiorari vs prohibition; Kesavananda Bharati vs Golak Nath; proved misbehaviour vs violation of Constitution; and Gauhati HC vs Manipur.

Part 1: Constitutional Framework and Judicial Independence

The constitutional framework for the Judiciary occupies Articles 124–237 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court is covered under Articles 124–147; High Courts under Articles 214–231; subordinate courts under Articles 233–237. These provisions together create India’s integrated judicial system.

Six Constitutional Safeguards for Judicial Independence

Safeguard	Constitutional Mechanism
Security of Tenure	Judges can be removed only through impeachment, on grounds of proved misbehaviour or incapacity. No executive removal. The complex two-House parliamentary process makes arbitrary removal practically impossible.
Salaries from Consolidated Fund	SC judges’ salaries are charged to the Consolidated Fund of India. They are not voted on by Parliament. This means Parliament cannot reduce a judge’s salary as a form of political pressure.
Service conditions protected	Service conditions of a SC judge cannot be varied to the disadvantage of that judge after appointment. Once appointed, the financial terms are constitutionally protected.
No discussion of judicial conduct in legislature	No discussion of the conduct of any judge of the SC or HC shall take place in Parliament or State Legislature: except on a motion for the presentation of an address to the President to remove the judge.
Post-retirement restrictions	A former SC judge is prohibited from practising as an advocate before the Supreme Court. This prevents judges from building practice relationships that could compromise impartiality during service.
Appointment insulated from executive control	Article 124(2): President appoints in consultation with the Chief Justice of India, in practice through the Collegium system. This insulates appointments from purely political control.

★ IMPORTANT  Salary from Consolidated Fund = not voted by Parliament = financially independent. Security of tenure = removal only through impeachment = institutionally secure. Together, these two safeguards form the core of judicial independence.

Part 2: Supreme Court of India

The Supreme Court of India is the apex court of the integrated judicial system. It is the final court of appeal, the guardian of the Constitution, and the interpreter of the law of the land. Every other court in India is bound by the Supreme Court’s judgments under Article 141.

Composition and Qualifications

The SC consists of the Chief Justice of India and up to 33 other judges (total 34 judges). A judge must be a citizen of India and must be: a judge of a High Court for at least five years; or an advocate of a High Court for at least ten years; or a distinguished jurist in the opinion of the President.

Appointment: Constitutional Text vs Institutional Practice

Under Article 124(2), every judge of the Supreme Court of India is appointed by the President of India. This is the constitutional text: unambiguous and directly tested by NDA. [NDA 2018-II]

NDA 2018-II tested this directly, offering the Supreme Court Collegium, the Cabinet, and the Lok Sabha as distractors. The constitutionally correct answer is: the President of India. The Collegium recommends: it does not appoint. The Cabinet and Lok Sabha have no constitutional role in judicial appointments.

Collegium System: Evolution

Stage	Position
Constitutional Text (Article 124(2))	President appoints SC judges in consultation with Chief Justice of India (and other SC judges as the President deems necessary)
First Judges case (1981)	Executive primacy: Chief Justice’s opinion is consultative, not binding; executive can override
Second Judges case (1993)	Judicial primacy: SC Collegium (CJI + 2 senior-most SC judges) controls appointments; the “concurrence” of the CJI requires the Collegium’s concurrence
Third Judges case (1998)	Collegium expanded to CJI + 4 senior-most SC judges; CJI alone cannot recommend
99th Amendment + NJAC (2014)	National Judicial Appointments Commission created: included government nominees; struck down by SC in 2015 as violating judicial independence
Current position (post-2015)	Return to Collegium system of the Third Judges case; President acts on Collegium’s recommendation

★ IMPORTANT  Constitutional text: President appoints SC judges (Article 124(2)). Institutional reality: Collegium decides; President acts on Collegium’s recommendation. NDA 2018-II tested the constitutional text: answer is President of India, not Collegium.  [NDA 2018-II]

Supreme Court as Court of Record

Article 129 makes the Supreme Court a court of record: its proceedings, acts, and decisions are permanently recorded and have evidentiary value. A court of record also has the power to punish for contempt of itself. Contempt of the Supreme Court can be civil (wilful disobedience of a court order) or criminal (publication interfering with administration of justice).

Other Key Facts: Retirement age: SC judges retire at 65 years of age. HC judges retire at 62.

Exam Recall Article/Case: Article 124 Theme: Supreme Court: Appointment and Structure Key Facts: Appointed by PRESIDENT (Article 124(2)) | Collegium recommends (does not appoint) | Total: CJI + 33 other judges = 34 | Qualifications: HC judge 5 yrs OR HC advocate 10 yrs OR distinguished jurist | Retirement: 65 years | Court of record (Article 129) | NJAC struck down 2015 NDA Trap: NDA 2018-II: SC judges appointed by President: NOT by Supreme Court Collegium, NOT by Cabinet, NOT by Lok Sabha.

Part 3: Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court

Why four types of jurisdiction? The Supreme Court serves fundamentally different constitutional functions: resolving federal disputes (original), reviewing lower court decisions (appellate), advising the President (advisory), and enforcing Fundamental Rights (writ). Each function requires its own jurisdictional basis.

Jurisdiction Type	Article	Description	Key Features
Original Jurisdiction	Article 131	Exclusive jurisdiction in disputes between States, or between the Union and States	Exclusive: no other court can try these disputes; not concurrent; purely federal disputes
Appellate Jurisdiction	Articles 132–136	Appeals from High Courts in constitutional, civil, and criminal matters	Includes Special Leave Petition (Article 136): discretionary appeal from any court/tribunal on any matter
Advisory Jurisdiction	Article 143	President may refer questions of law or fact of public importance for SC’s opinion	SC may give opinion but is NOT obligated; advisory opinion is NOT binding: it is not a judgment
Writ Jurisdiction	Article 32	Issue five constitutional writs for enforcement of Fundamental Rights	Article 32 is itself a Fundamental Right; “heart and soul of the Constitution” (Ambedkar)
Collegiate Jurisdiction	DOES NOT EXIST	Fabricated category: has no constitutional or legal basis	NDA 2022-I included this as the “does not fall under jurisdiction” option: the correct answer to identify as non-existent  [NDA 2022-I]

★ IMPORTANT  “Collegiate Jurisdiction” is a fabricated category. It was invented for NDA 2022-I. “Collegium” appears in Indian judicial discourse for judge appointments: it is NOT a type of court jurisdiction. The four real types are: Original, Appellate, Advisory, Writ. Know these four precisely.  [NDA 2022-I]

Advisory Jurisdiction: Key Distinction

Advisory Jurisdiction is unique: the SC gives opinions, not judgments. Advisory opinions under Article 143 are not binding: they cannot be enforced as court orders. They are the President’s mechanism for seeking constitutional guidance on complex questions of law or fact. The SC can refuse to give an opinion: it “may” advise but is not required to. This distinguishes Advisory Jurisdiction from all other forms of SC jurisdiction.

Part 4: Grounds for Judicial Impeachment

A judge of the Supreme Court or a High Court can be removed from office through impeachment, but only on two constitutionally specified grounds. This precision is exactly what NDA 2009-I tested.

✓ TWO AND ONLY TWO grounds for judicial removal: (1) Proved Misbehaviour | (2) Incapacity ✗ NOT a ground for judicial removal: “Violation of the Constitution”: this is a ground for PRESIDENTIAL impeachment (Article 61), not judicial removal.

Dimension	Presidential Impeachment (Article 61)	Judicial Removal (Article 124(4))
Grounds	Violation of the Constitution (only ground)	Proved Misbehaviour OR Incapacity (violation of Constitution is NOT a ground)
Initiation	Either House of Parliament	Notice by 100 LS members OR 50 RS members
Investigation	Each House investigates and passes charges	Three-member committee: SC judge + HC Chief Justice + distinguished jurist
Majority required	Special majority (total membership majority + 2/3 present and voting) in each House	Same special majority in each House
Removal authority	Presidential order after both Houses pass address	Presidential order after both Houses pass address
Historical note	Only one Presidential impeachment process in India’s history	No judge has ever been successfully impeached in Indian constitutional history

★ IMPORTANT  NDA 2009-I: “Violation of the Constitution” was Option 1: designed to catch students who confuse presidential and judicial impeachment grounds. Judicial = proved misbehaviour + incapacity ONLY. Presidential = violation of Constitution. Answer was (d): Options 2 and 3 only.  [NDA 2009-I]

Impeachment Procedure for SC and HC Judges

• A notice signed by 100 Members of Lok Sabha OR 50 Members of Rajya Sabha is submitted to the Speaker or Chairman.

• The Speaker or Chairman constitutes a three-member investigation committee: one SC judge, one HC Chief Justice, and one distinguished jurist.

• The committee investigates the charges and submits its report.

• If the committee finds the judge guilty, the House (in which the notice was given) debates and passes an address to the President by a special majority (majority of total membership AND two-thirds of members present and voting).

• The other House also passes the address by the same special majority.

• After both Houses pass the address, the President issues the order of removal.

• No judge of the Supreme Court has ever been successfully impeached in India’s constitutional history.

📌 Exam Recall Article/Case: Article 124(4); Article 218 Theme: Judicial Impeachment Key Facts: TWO grounds ONLY: Proved Misbehaviour + Incapacity | Violation of Constitution = NOT a judicial ground (it IS a Presidential ground under Article 61) | Notice: 100 LS OR 50 RS members | Three-member committee investigates | Special majority in each House | Presidential order of removal | No judge successfully impeached in India NDA Trap: NDA 2009-I: Correct answer = (d) 2 and 3 only (proved misbehaviour + incapacity). “Violation of the Constitution” was Option 1: it is a Presidential impeachment ground, not a judicial ground.

Part 5: The Five Constitutional Writs

Why writs? Constitutional rights are meaningless without enforcement mechanisms. The five writs are the fastest, most direct judicial remedies available for violations of constitutional rights and for challenging the actions of public authorities. They bypass the slow ordinary litigation process and go directly to the SC (Article 32) or HC (Article 226).

The five constitutional writs are: Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Prohibition, Certiorari, and Quo Warranto. Remember: HMPCQ. Severability is NOT a writ: it is a constitutional doctrine. This was directly tested by NDA 2021-II. [NDA 2021-II]

Writ	Latin Meaning	Directed To	Purpose	Key Note
Habeas Corpus	You have the body	Any authority (public or private) detaining a person	Requires detaining authority to produce detained person before court and show cause for detention; protects personal liberty against arbitrary detention	Can be issued against private individuals; not only against State; available even during Emergency (cannot suspend)
Mandamus	We command	Public authority, court, corporation, government body with public duty	Commands the performance of a public duty that authority has refused or failed to perform; cannot be issued against private individuals or the President/Governor	Enforces non-discretionary public duties only; cannot direct how discretion is exercised
Prohibition	Forbid	Inferior court or tribunal	Prohibits inferior court from proceeding further in a case beyond its jurisdiction; prevents ultra vires orders before they are made	Issued BEFORE inferior court delivers judgment; PREVENTIVE (stops future harm)
Certiorari	To be certified / To call up	Inferior court, tribunal, or quasi-judicial body	Calls up the record of proceedings from inferior court to superior court for review; quashes the inferior court’s order if found illegal	Issued AFTER inferior court acts; CORRECTIVE (corrects past/ongoing harm); key NDA 2012-I question  [NDA 2012-I]
Quo Warranto	By what authority	Person holding a public office	Requires holder to show by what authority they hold a public office; challenges right to hold office; can be filed by any interested person (not just aggrieved party)	Only writ that can be filed by a non-aggrieved third party; public offices only

★ IMPORTANT  Severability is a DOCTRINE (not a writ): NDA 2021-II confirmed this. The five and only five writs are HMPCQ. “Certiorari Calls up the Record; Prohibition Prevents Proceedings”: this one sentence prevents the most confirmed NDA error in this chapter.  [NDA 2012-I | NDA 2021-II]

Certiorari vs Prohibition: The Most Confused Writ Pair

NDA 2012-I used the definition of Prohibition as the primary distractor for Certiorari. The question asked what certiorari is issued for: and option (a) described Prohibition’s function (‘stop further proceedings’). Certiorari transfers the record for review; Prohibition stops proceedings. [NDA 2012-I]

Dimension	Certiorari	Prohibition
Purpose	Transfers the record of proceedings from inferior court to superior court for review: can QUASH the inferior court’s order	Prohibits the inferior court from proceeding further in a case: prevents the order from being made
Timing	Issued AFTER the inferior court has acted (or is in the process of acting)	Issued BEFORE the inferior court delivers judgment: prospective/preventive
Nature	CORRECTIVE: corrects what has gone wrong	PREVENTIVE: prevents what would go wrong
Effect	Superior court reviews and may quash the order	Inferior court cannot proceed; no order is made
NDA trap	NDA 2012-I: “stop further proceedings” is Prohibition’s definition: NOT certiorari’s	NDA 2012-I: Prohibition definition was option (a): the distractor for certiorari

“Certiorari Calls; Prohibition Prevents”: four words that prevent the confirmed NDA 2012-I error. Certiorari calls up the record after the inferior court acts. Prohibition prevents the inferior court from acting at all (or from continuing). Both directed to inferior courts: that’s the similarity. The difference is timing and effect.

📌 Exam Recall Article/Case: Articles 32, 226 Theme: Five Constitutional Writs Key Facts: HMPCQ: Habeas Corpus (produce body), Mandamus (command duty), Prohibition (stops proceedings: PREVENTIVE), Certiorari (calls up record: CORRECTIVE), Quo Warranto (challenge public office) | Severability = doctrine NOT a writ  [NDA 2021-II] | Certiorari ≠ “stop proceedings”: that is Prohibition  [NDA 2012-I] NDA Trap: NDA 2021-II: Which is NOT a writ? Severability. NDA 2012-I: Certiorari: transfers record for review (NOT stops proceedings: that is Prohibition).

Part 6: Judicial Review: Articles 32 and 226

Why judicial review? Constitutional supremacy requires that laws enacted by Parliament and acts of the Executive must conform to the Constitution. If Parliament passes a law that violates the Constitution, who stops it? The courts: through judicial review. Without this power, the Constitution would be only as strong as the government’s willingness to follow it.

The Two Constitutional Pillars: Articles 32 and 226

The power of judicial review in the Constitution of India is most clearly expressed through two articles: Article 32 (Supreme Court) and Article 226 (High Courts). Both were directly confirmed by NDA 2015-II. [NDA 2015-II]

Dimension	Article 32 (Supreme Court)	Article 226 (High Courts)
Scope of writs	Enforcement of Fundamental Rights ONLY: writs cannot be issued for non-FR matters under Article 32	Enforcement of Fundamental Rights AND for any other legal purpose: broader scope
Nature of the right	Article 32 is itself a Fundamental Right (Part III): “heart and soul of the Constitution” (Ambedkar)	Article 226 is NOT a Fundamental Right: it is a constitutional provision but not in Part III
During Emergency	Article 32 enforcement can be suspended by Presidential order under Article 359 (National Emergency): but not Articles 20/21	Article 226 CANNOT be suspended even during National Emergency
Common features	Both empower courts to issue the same five writs: Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Prohibition, Certiorari, Quo Warranto	Same five writs available in both courts for FR enforcement

★ IMPORTANT  NDA 2015-II: “most clearly express judicial review” = Articles 32 and 226. Article 32 is a Fundamental Right (can be suspended during Emergency). Article 226 is NOT a Fundamental Right (cannot be suspended). Article 226 is wider in scope (any legal purpose).  [NDA 2015-II]

Judicial Review vs Judicial Activism vs PIL: The Critical Distinctions

NDA 2010-I tested which concept is most precisely linked to Public Interest Litigation (PIL). The answer is judicial activism: not judicial review. [NDA 2010-I]

Term	Definition	PIL Connection
Judicial Review	The power of courts to examine the constitutionality of legislative and executive actions; a defined legal power older than PIL	PIL uses judicial review but is not the same concept
Judicial Activism	Courts proactively entering areas of governance beyond the strict adjudicatory role; expanded self-initiated court action beyond traditional adversarial litigation	PIL is an INSTRUMENT of judicial activism: PIL is the mechanism; activism is the approach
Judicial Intervention	Courts stepping in to address a specific matter; narrower than judicial activism; describes the act of entering a controversy	PIL involves judicial intervention but this is not its defining characteristic
Judicial Sanctity	Reverence for and inviolability of the judicial process; not a precise legal category or concept	Not a meaningful characterisation of PIL

PIL is most precisely linked to JUDICIAL ACTIVISM. Judicial review = the power. Judicial activism = the manner of exercising it expansively. PIL = the specific instrument. NDA 2010-I tested which one: answer: judicial activism.  [NDA 2010-I]

Public Interest Litigation (PIL) explained: PIL allows any public-spirited citizen to approach the court even without being directly aggrieved. The traditional requirement of locus standi (standing to sue) is relaxed. Courts can also take suo motu (on their own motion) cognisance of matters of public importance. PIL transformed the Supreme Court from a court serving litigants with traditional legal standing into a public institution addressing governance failures, human rights violations, and matters of national importance.

Part 7: Landmark Constitutional Cases

Why teach four cases together? NDA 2015-II tested the Basic Structure Doctrine’s case origin against three plausible distractors: Golak Nath, Maneka Gandhi, and S.R. Bommai. Getting this right requires knowing not just which case decided what, but why the others are wrong distractors. The four cases must be taught as a comparative set.

Case	Year	Constitutional Doctrine / Contribution
Golak Nath v. State of Punjab	1967	Parliament CANNOT amend Fundamental Rights at all; Article 368 is not a constituent power; FRs are placed beyond Parliament’s amending reach. OVERRULED by Kesavananda Bharati (1973).
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala	1973	BASIC STRUCTURE DOCTRINE: Parliament CAN amend the Constitution under Article 368 but CANNOT alter or destroy its basic or essential features; overruled Golak Nath; allowed FR amendment subject to basic structure limit; 13-judge bench; 7:6 majority.  [NDA 2015-II]
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India	1978	Article 21 expansive interpretation: “procedure established by law” must be fair, just, and reasonable (not merely any procedure prescribed by law); gave substantive content to personal liberty; overruled the narrow A.K. Gopalan interpretation of Article 21.
S.R. Bommai v. Union of India	1994	Restriction on arbitrary use of Article 356 (President’s Rule): floor test in the State Assembly is the proper mechanism to determine majority; courts can judicially review the imposition of President’s Rule; Article 356 cannot be used for political reasons.
Minerva Mills v. Union of India	1980	Harmony between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles: neither Part III nor Part IV is absolutely superior to the other; Parliament cannot use DPSP implementation to abrogate basic structure or core FRs.
K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India	2017	Right to Privacy is a Fundamental Right under Article 21; nine-judge bench; overruled M.P. Sharma (1954) and Kharak Singh (1963) decisions that had denied privacy constitutional status.

★ IMPORTANT  Basic Structure Doctrine = Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973): NOT Golak Nath. Golak Nath (1967) was the case that Kesavananda OVERRULED. Golak Nath held Parliament cannot amend FRs at all: an absolute position that Kesavananda replaced with the nuanced Basic Structure Doctrine. NDA 2015-II tested all four cases as options.  [NDA 2015-II]

Exam Recall Article/Case: Kesavananda Bharati 1973; Golak Nath 1967; Maneka Gandhi 1978; S.R. Bommai 1994 Theme: Landmark Constitutional Cases Key Facts: Kesavananda Bharati (1973) = Basic Structure Doctrine | Golak Nath (1967) = no FR amendment (overruled by Kesavananda) | Maneka Gandhi (1978) = Article 21 expansive (fair procedure) | S.R. Bommai (1994) = Article 356 restraint (floor test; judicial review) NDA Trap: NDA 2015-II: Basic Structure Doctrine was enunciated in Kesavananda Bharati: NOT Golak Nath (which was overruled by Kesavananda). Golak Nath is the case that lost; Kesavananda Bharati is the case that replaced it.

Part 8: High Courts of India

High Courts are constituted under Article 214: every State shall have a High Court. As of 2025, India has 25 High Courts, making the Indian High Court system one of the world’s largest judicial networks. Each HC is the highest court within its territorial jurisdiction and has supervisory authority over all subordinate courts within that territory.

Powers of High Courts

Power	Article	Description
Court of Record	Article 215	Every HC is a court of record; its proceedings are permanently recorded; has power to punish for contempt of itself
Writ Jurisdiction	Article 226	HC can issue five constitutional writs for enforcement of Fundamental Rights AND for any other legal purpose (broader than Article 32 which is limited to FRs only)
Superintendence	Article 227	Every HC has superintendence over all courts and tribunals within its territorial jurisdiction (including revenue courts in some cases); can call for records, give directions
Original Jurisdiction	Article 225	HCs can exercise original jurisdiction as provided by existing law; some HCs have original jurisdiction in certain civil matters

★ IMPORTANT  Article 226 (HC writ jurisdiction) is broader than Article 32 (SC writ jurisdiction) because Article 226 extends to any legal purpose, not just FR enforcement. Article 226 also cannot be suspended during Emergency: unlike Article 32 enforcement which can be suspended under Article 359.

Common High Court: Article 231

A common High Court for two or more States can be established by Parliament by law under Article 231. [NDA 2020-I/II]

NDA 2020-I/II tested this directly. The distractors were: a Supreme Court order, a Presidential order, and a constitutional amendment. Neither the Supreme Court nor the President has the power to establish a common HC through an order. This is exclusively a parliamentary legislative power. Example: the Gauhati High Court serves as a common HC for multiple northeastern States.

★ IMPORTANT  Common HC established by PARLIAMENT BY LAW (Article 231). Not by SC order. Not by Presidential order. Not by constitutional amendment alone. The specific Article 231 power is Parliament’s legislative power.  [NDA 2020-I/II]

Part 9: High Court Territorial Jurisdiction over Union Territories

This is the chapter’s most precision-demanding section, directly tested by NDA 2026-I with four HC-UT pairings, only ONE of which was correctly matched. The question required systematic knowledge of UT-to-HC mapping, not just familiarity with the most common pairings.

The key principle: each HC covers its own State plus certain Union Territories adjacent or assigned to it. This is a complex mapping that requires a complete reference table, not selective recall.

NDA 2026-I: Analysis of Four Pairs

Pair Tested	Verdict	Correct Answer
Calcutta HC → Lakshadweep	INCORRECT	Calcutta HC covers Andaman and Nicobar Islands (not Lakshadweep). Lakshadweep is under Kerala HC.
Madras HC → Puducherry	CORRECT	Madras HC does cover Tamil Nadu AND Puducherry. This is the only correctly matched pair.
Gauhati HC → Manipur	INCORRECT	Manipur has its own separate High Court since 2013. Gauhati HC no longer covers Manipur.
Kerala HC → Andaman and Nicobar Islands	INCORRECT	Andaman and Nicobar Islands is under Calcutta HC. Kerala HC covers Lakshadweep (western island).

★ IMPORTANT  NDA 2026-I answer: ONE pair correctly matched (Madras HC: Puducherry). All other three are wrong: (1) Lakshadweep = Kerala HC not Calcutta; (2) Manipur = own HC since 2013 not Gauhati; (3) Andaman = Calcutta HC not Kerala.

Post-2013 Northeast Reorganisation: Critical Update

Before 2013, the Gauhati High Court had jurisdiction over seven northeastern States: Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram, Arunachal Pradesh, Manipur, Meghalaya, and Tripura. In 2013, separate High Courts were established for Manipur, Meghalaya, and Tripura.

After 2013 (current position): Gauhati HC covers ONLY: Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram, and Arunachal Pradesh. Manipur, Meghalaya, and Tripura each have their own High Courts. NDA 2026-I confirmed the Gauhati HC: Manipur pairing as incorrect.

Complete HC-UT Territorial Jurisdiction Table

High Court	State(s)	Union Territory/ies under Jurisdiction
Calcutta HC	West Bengal	Andaman and Nicobar Islands
Madras HC	Tamil Nadu	Puducherry (Pondicherry)
Kerala HC	Kerala	Lakshadweep
Bombay HC	Maharashtra, Goa	Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu
Delhi HC	— (HC is itself in UT)	National Capital Territory of Delhi
Gauhati HC	Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram, Arunachal Pradesh	No separate UT under Gauhati HC (Manipur, Meghalaya, Tripura now have own HCs since 2013)
Punjab and Haryana HC	Punjab, Haryana	Chandigarh (UT)
J&K and Ladakh HC	— (both are UTs)	Jammu and Kashmir (UT); Ladakh (UT)
Manipur HC	Manipur	— (established 2013; separated from Gauhati HC)
Meghalaya HC	Meghalaya	— (established 2013; separated from Gauhati HC)
Tripura HC	Tripura	— (established 2013; separated from Gauhati HC)

Three confirmed NDA traps: (1) Calcutta HC = Andaman (NOT Lakshadweep). (2) Kerala HC = Lakshadweep (NOT Andaman). (3) Gauhati HC = Assam/Nagaland/Mizoram/Arunachal ONLY: NOT Manipur/Meghalaya/Tripura (those have own HCs since 2013).

---