Every Union Territory has its own High Court.

Only some do (like Delhi); many others, such as Chandigarh, Lakshadweep, and the Andaman & Nicobar Islands, are served by a nearby State's High Court whose jurisdiction Parliament extended under clause (4).

A Union Territory High Court is fundamentally different in power from a State High Court.

Clause (2) applies the same core constitutional provisions (Chapter V of Part VI) to these courts, so their powers are essentially the same, subject to any modifications Parliament makes.

The Constitution of India

Article 241

High Courts for Union territories

(1) Parliament may by law constitute a High Court for a Union territory or declare any court in any such territory to be a High Court for all or any of the purposes of this Constitution.§

(2) The provisions of Chapter V of Part VI shall apply in relation to every High Court referred to in clause (1) as they apply in relation to a High Court referred to in article 214 subject to such modifications or exceptions as Parliament may by law provide.§

(3) Subject to the provisions of this Constitution and to the provisions of any law of the appropriate Legislature made by virtue of powers conferred on that Legislature by or under this Constitution, every High Court exercising jurisdiction immediately before the commencement of the Constitution (Seventh Amendment) Act, 1956, in relation to any Union territory shall continue to exercise such jurisdiction in relation to that territory after such commencement.§

(4) Nothing in this article derogates from the power of Parliament to extend or exclude the jurisdiction of a High Court for a State to, or from, any Union territory or part thereof.§

Why this exists

Union Territories are directly governed by the Union government and don't have the same constitutional machinery as States. The Constitution needed a flexible mechanism to provide judicial oversight for these territories without assuming they'd each get a full High Court like a State. Article 241 gives Parliament the tools to either build a dedicated High Court (as it did for Delhi) or simply extend an existing State High Court's jurisdiction over a nearby Union Territory — whichever is practical given the territory's size and needs.

How courts read it

Article 241 has mostly operated as a structural, enabling provision rather than one generating major litigation over its own meaning. Its real story is administrative: Parliament used it to pass the Delhi High Court Act, 1966, carving out a separate High Court for Delhi that had earlier been served by the Punjab High Court. For other Union Territories, Parliament chose the clause (4) route instead of building new courts — for example, the Punjab and Haryana High Court exercises jurisdiction over Chandigarh, the Calcutta High Court over the Andaman & Nicobar Islands, the Kerala High Court over Lakshadweep, and the Bombay High Court over Goa, Daman and Diu (historically, before Goa got its own Bench).

Common misconceptions

Myth: Every Union Territory has its own High Court.
Fact: Only some do (like Delhi); many others, such as Chandigarh, Lakshadweep, and the Andaman & Nicobar Islands, are served by a nearby State's High Court whose jurisdiction Parliament extended under clause (4).
Myth: A Union Territory High Court is fundamentally different in power from a State High Court.
Fact: Clause (2) applies the same core constitutional provisions (Chapter V of Part VI) to these courts, so their powers are essentially the same, subject to any modifications Parliament makes.