Since the provided case content is incomplete and refers to "Article 241 in Constitution of India" without a specific case name or details, I will provide a general explanation of Article 241 of the Indian Constitution and its typical application in a hypothetical case scenario. This will follow the requested format.

Short Summary

Article 241 of the Indian Constitution deals with High Courts for Union territories. It empowers Parliament to establish a High Court for a Union territory or declare any court in such territory to be a High Court for all or any of the purposes of the Constitution. A hypothetical case might involve a challenge to the jurisdiction of a High Court extended to a Union Territory or the validity of a law passed by Parliament under Article 241.

Facts

Let's assume Parliament passes an Act extending the jurisdiction of the High Court of State X to the Union Territory of Y. A resident of Union Territory Y is arrested under a central law and challenges the jurisdiction of the High Court of State X to hear their case, arguing that the extension of jurisdiction is unconstitutional.

Issues

• Whether Parliament has the power under Article 241 to extend the jurisdiction of a High Court of a State to a Union Territory.
• Whether the extension of jurisdiction infringes upon the fundamental rights of residents of the Union Territory.

Petitioner's Arguments

The petitioner (the arrested resident of Union Territory Y) would argue that:

• The extension of jurisdiction is arbitrary and discriminatory, as residents of the Union Territory are being subjected to a court not originally intended for them.
• Parliament's power under Article 241 is limited and cannot be used to create an unequal system of justice.
• The extension creates practical difficulties in accessing justice, as residents of the Union Territory must now travel to State X.

Respondent's Arguments

The respondent (likely the Union of India) would argue that:

• Article 241 explicitly grants Parliament the power to extend the jurisdiction of a High Court to a Union Territory.
• The extension is necessary for administrative efficiency and to ensure access to justice in the Union Territory, which may lack the resources to establish its own High Court.
• The extension does not violate any fundamental rights, as all individuals within the jurisdiction of the High Court are subject to the same laws and procedures.

Court's Reasoning

The Court would likely examine the scope of Article 241 and its relationship with other provisions of the Constitution, such as Article 14 (equality before the law) and Article 21 (protection of life and personal liberty). The Court would consider the legislative intent behind the Act extending jurisdiction and whether it serves a legitimate purpose. The Court would also assess whether the extension creates any undue hardship or disadvantage for residents of the Union Territory. The court will likely uphold the power of the parliament under Article 241, provided the extension is not arbitrary or discriminatory.

Conclusion

The Court's ruling would depend on the specific facts and arguments presented. If the Court finds that the extension of jurisdiction is reasonable, non-discriminatory, and serves a legitimate purpose, it would likely uphold the validity of the Act passed by Parliament. The petition would be dismissed. However, if the Court finds that the extension is arbitrary or violates fundamental rights, it may strike down the Act or issue directions to mitigate any adverse effects on residents of the Union Territory.