Is the Judiciary a State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India?

Article 12 of the Indian Constitution is central to the protection of fundamental rights within the framework of Indian democracy. It defines “State” in a broad and inclusive manner to ensure that no person or authority violates the constitutional guarantees granted to citizens. However, a complex legal question has arisen as to whether the Judiciary, one of the three branches of government, is considered a part of the “State” under Article 12. 

This question has sparked extensive debate, with various judicial interpretations offering differing perspectives on the issue. This article will examine the definition of “State” under Article 12, the role of the Judiciary within the Indian Constitution, and the key judicial decisions that have addressed the issue of whether the Judiciary is a “State” under Article 12.

Understanding Article 12 of the Constitution of India

Article 12 of the Indian Constitution provides a comprehensive definition of the term “State”. According to this Article, the term “State” includes:

• The Government and Parliament of India.
• The Government and Legislature of each State.
• All local authorities within the territory of India, or under the control of the Government of India.

The definition of “State” in Article 12 is deliberately broad and aims to cover all entities that exercise powers akin to those of the government, ensuring that any authority, body, or individual acting in a governmental capacity is subject to constitutional scrutiny. The inclusion of “State” under Article 12 extends the protection of fundamental rights to individuals who are subject to the actions of various governmental and quasi-governmental bodies, but it does not specifically mention the Judiciary.

The Role of the Judiciary in the Indian Constitution

The Indian Judiciary is one of the three pillars of the Indian democracy, alongside the Legislature and the Executive. It plays a pivotal role in interpreting the Constitution, safeguarding the fundamental rights of citizens, and maintaining the rule of law. The Judiciary, particularly the Supreme Court of India, has the power of judicial review, which allows it to examine the constitutionality of laws and government actions. It is through this power that the Judiciary ensures that the Constitution’s guarantees, particularly fundamental rights, are not infringed by any executive or legislative actions.

The idea of judicial independence is central to the functioning of the Indian Judiciary. Judges are insulated from political pressure and interference, and the Judiciary’s primary role is to interpret and apply the law impartially. This independence raises an important question: if the Judiciary is considered part of the “State” under Article 12, would it compromise its impartiality and independence?

Is the Judiciary a “State” under Article 12?

While the term “State” under Article 12 encompasses a wide range of government institutions and authorities, the Judiciary is notably absent from the list. This has led to the question of whether the Judiciary should be considered a part of the “State” under Article 12 for the purposes of protecting fundamental rights.

Judicial Function vs. Administrative Function

One of the central issues in determining whether the Judiciary is a “State” under Article 12 is the distinction between its judicial and administrative functions. The Judiciary performs two broad categories of functions:

1. Judicial Functions: The Judiciary exercises its power of judicial review, interprets laws, resolves disputes, and upholds the Constitution. In this capacity, the Judiciary acts as an independent body tasked with safeguarding the rights of citizens and maintaining the rule of law.
2. Administrative Functions: The Judiciary also engages in administrative tasks, such as formulating rules for the functioning of courts, regulating legal proceedings, and managing judicial staff. These administrative functions have a more governmental character and could be viewed as part of the broader machinery of the State.

When the Judiciary performs its judicial functions, it operates independently, and there is a strong argument that it should not be considered a “State” under Article 12, as it is not subject to the same scrutiny that other governmental bodies are. However, when the Judiciary engages in its administrative functions, there is a stronger case for it to be regarded as a “State”, as these functions involve decision-making that impacts public policy and governance.

Landmark Cases on Judiciary a State under Article 12

Several landmark cases have addressed the issue of whether the Judiciary should be considered a “State” under Article 12.

Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra (1967)

In Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra, the Supreme Court considered whether the Judiciary could be considered an “other authority” under Article 12 for the purposes of enforcing fundamental rights. The Court ruled that the Judiciary was not an “other authority” under Article 12, emphasising that it was an independent body, separate from the government. 

The Court acknowledged the vital role of the Judiciary in protecting fundamental rights but maintained that judicial functions were beyond the scope of Article 12’s definition of “State”. The case established that the Judiciary could not be subjected to writ jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution unless it was acting in violation of fundamental rights.

R.S. Nayak v. A.R. Antulay (1984)

In R.S. Nayak v. A.R. Antulay, the Supreme Court reiterated that the Judiciary is not a “State” under Article 12. However, the Court also emphasised that the Judiciary is still subject to the Constitution and must uphold constitutional principles, including the separation of powers and judicial independence. This case further cemented the notion that while the Judiciary is not part of the “State”, it is still bound by constitutional constraints.

Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra (2002)

The case of Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra (2002) reaffirmed the position that no judicial proceeding could be said to violate fundamental rights. The Supreme Court ruled that superior courts, including the High Courts and the Supreme Court, do not fall within the ambit of the “State” or “other authorities” under Article 12. This ruling reinforced the view that the Judiciary, when performing its judicial functions, operates outside the definition of “State” under Article 12.

Riju Prasad Sarmah v. State of Assam (2011)

In Riju Prasad Sarmah v. State of Assam, the Supreme Court revisited the issue of whether the Judiciary could be regarded as a “State” under Article 12. The petitioner argued that all three organs of the State – the Legislature, Executive, and Judiciary – should be regarded as part of the “State”. The Court ruled that when the Judiciary is acting in its judicial capacity, it cannot be regarded as a “State”. However, the Court also clarified that when the Judiciary is performing administrative or quasi-judicial functions, it is amenable to writ jurisdiction. This case highlighted the complexity of the issue and reinforced the view that the Judiciary’s status under Article 12 depends on the nature of its actions.

Reconsidering the Position of the Judiciary

While the prevailing view has been that the Judiciary is not a “State” under Article 12, there is room for reconsideration. Some legal scholars argue that the Judiciary should be included within the definition of “State” under Article 12, particularly in relation to its administrative functions. In support of this argument, they point to the fact that the Judiciary exercises rulemaking powers, makes decisions that affect the public sphere, and can potentially violate fundamental rights in its administrative capacity. If the Judiciary were not part of the “State”, then its rulemaking powers and actions would not be subject to the same constitutional safeguards.

The National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution (NCRWC) has recommended an amendment to Article 12, suggesting that the term “other authorities” should include entities whose functions are of a public nature. Since the Judiciary is tasked with interpreting and upholding the law, which is inherently a public function, it could be argued that the Judiciary should be included within the ambit of the “State” under Article 12. Similarly, the UK Human Rights Act, 1998 defines a “public authority” as any body whose functions are of a public nature, and this definition could be applied to the Indian Judiciary.

Conclusion

The question of whether the Judiciary is a “State” under Article 12 of the Constitution of India remains a subject of legal debate. While judicial precedents consistently maintain that the Judiciary is not a “State” when acting in its judicial capacity, its administrative functions could potentially bring it within the definition of “State”. 

The Judiciary’s rulemaking powers and its ability to affect public policy suggest that it should be included within the scope of “State” under Article 12, particularly in the context of its administrative functions. However, as the prevailing view holds, the Judiciary must remain independent in its judicial functions to safeguard fundamental rights, and it should not be subjected to the same scrutiny as other branches of the State.