Definition of State under Article 12

Definition of State under Article 12

Article 12 of the Indian Constitution defines the meaning of the term “State” for the purposes of the Constitution. According to Article 12, “State” includes the following:

1. The government and the Parliament of India
2. The government and Legislature of each of the states in India
3. All local or other authorities within the territory of India or under the control of the Indian government

Thus, the term “State” under Article 12 is not limited to just the government and legislative bodies but also includes other entities that exercise power and authority within the territory of India or under the control of the Indian government.

This definition of state under Article 12 is essential in determining the scope of fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution, which are enforceable against the State.

What is the importance of Article 12 of the Indian Constitution?

Article 12 of the Indian Constitution defines the scope of the term “State” used in various provisions of the Constitution. State under Article 12 includes the government and Parliament of India, the government and the Legislature of each of the States, and all local or other authorities within the territory of India or under the control of the Indian Government.

The importance of Article 12 lies in the fact that it clarifies the scope and extent of the term “State,” which is used in many fundamental rights provisions such as Articles 14, 15, and 21. These provisions guarantee equality before the law, prohibit discrimination on various grounds, and provide for the protection of life and personal liberty.

By including all local and other authorities within the territory of India or under the control of the Indian government within the definition of State under Article 12, it is ensured that these authorities are bound to follow the fundamental rights provisions of the Constitution, and any violation of these rights by such authorities can be challenged in court.

The government and the Parliament of India

This includes the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Indian government at the national level. It encompasses the President of India, the Vice President, the Prime Minister, the Council of Ministers, and the Members of Parliament (MPs) in both the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha.

The government and Legislature of each of the states in India

This refers to the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the state governments in India. Each state has its own government, which includes the Chief Minister, the Council of Ministers, and the Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLAs) and the Members of Legislative Council (MLCs), if the state has one.

All local or other authorities within the territory of India or under the control of the Indian government

This covers all authorities and bodies that are established by or under the Constitution, such as municipal corporations, panchayats, zilla parishads, and other local self-governing bodies. It also includes any other authority established by the Indian government, such as public sector undertakings and autonomous bodies.

What are local authorities?

In the case of Mohammed Yasin v. Town Area Committee, the Supreme Court of India held that the bye-laws of a Municipal Committee that imposed a prescribed fee on wholesale dealers constituted an order by a State authority that violated Article 19(1)(g) of the Indian Constitution. The bye-laws had the effect of completely stopping the wholesale dealer’s business, which was deemed unconstitutional.

Similarly, in the case of Shri Ram v. The Notified Area Committee, the court declared a fee levied under Section 29 of the Uttar Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1959 to be invalid. The fee was deemed unconstitutional as it violated the fundamental right to carry on a trade or business, which is protected under Article 19(1)(g) of the Indian Constitution.

Meaning of other authorities for State under Article 12

Application of Ejusdem Generis

Ejusdem Generis is the tool of interpretation which suggests that when a class of words is followed by a general word, the general word is not absolutely wide but restricted to the implication of the class of words it is preceded by. Therefore, the use of the phrase “and other authorities” in Article 12 must be read in light of the preceding terms such as local authorities, and state and central governments.

However, the Supreme Court has made an exception to this rule of interpretation to Article 12 and held that “other authorities” cannot be constricted to mean local authorities, and state and union governments in Ujjain Bai v. State of U.P.

Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagatram Sardar Singh Raghuvanshi (1975)

In this case, the Supreme Court held that the Oil and Natural Gas Commission (ONGC), which is a government-owned corporation, is an “other authority” under Article 12. The court held that ONGC was carrying out a public function, and thus, its actions were subject to judicial review.

Rajasthan Electricity Board v. Mohan Lal (1967)

In this case, the Supreme Court held that the Rajasthan Electricity Board is an “other authority” under Article 12. The court held that the board was carrying out a public function, and thus, its actions were subject to judicial review.

Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi (1981)

In Ajay Hasia case, the Supreme Court held that private educational institutions that receive substantial financial aid from the government can be considered an “other authority” under Article 12. The court held that such institutions were discharging a public function and were, therefore, subject to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court.

Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology (2002)

In this case, the Supreme Court held that the Indian Institute of Chemical Biology is an “other authority” under Article 12. The court held that the institute was substantially financed by the government and was, therefore, subject to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court.

Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India (1979)

In this case, the Supreme Court held that the International Airport Authority of India is an “other authority” under Article 12. The court held that the authority was an instrumentality of the State and was, therefore, subject to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court.

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. N. R. Vairamani (2004)

In this case, the Supreme Court held that Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (BPCL) is an “other authority” under Article 12. The court held that BPCL was a government company, and its actions were subject to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court.

Guidelines are given in Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India for a State under Article 12

In the case of Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India (IAAI), the Supreme Court laid down the guidelines to determine whether an entity can be considered an “other authority” under Article 12 of the Indian Constitution. The guidelines are as follows:

1. Existence of a statutory authority: The entity must have been created by a statute, which provides for its powers and functions.
2. Functional character: The entity must be discharging a public function or an essential public utility.
3. Financial autonomy: The entity must be financially independent, or its finances must be deeply intertwined with the government.
4. Control by the government: The entity must be subject to a significant degree of control by the government.

The court held that if an entity satisfies all or most of these guidelines, it can be considered an “other authority” under Article 12. The court also noted that even if an entity is not created by a statute, it can still be considered an “other authority” if it satisfies the other criteria mentioned above.

Furthermore, the court held that entities that are considered “other authorities” under Article 12 are subject to the writ jurisdiction of the High Courts and the Supreme Court. This means that their actions can be challenged before the courts if they violate fundamental rights or are otherwise illegal or arbitrary.

Whether BCCI is a State or not?

The interpretation of Article 12 of the Indian Constitution has been the subject of many court cases, including Zee Telefilms v. Union of India (AIR 2005 SC 2677). In this case, the Supreme Court held that the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) cannot be considered a “State” under Article 12, as it is not created by a statute and is not dominated by the government financially, functionally, or administratively.

This ruling is relevant because it clarifies that not all bodies or organizations can be considered “States” under Article 12 of the Constitution. For an entity to be considered a “State,” it must meet certain criteria, including being created by a statute and being dominated by the government in various ways.

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

Under Article 12 of the Indian Constitution, the term “State” has been defined to include the government and Parliament of India, the government and Legislature of each of the states, and all local or other authorities within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India.

The Judiciary, being one of the three pillars of Indian democracy, is not specifically mentioned as an “other authority” under Article 12. However, the Judiciary exercises the power of the State to interpret the Constitution and protect the fundamental rights of citizens. In several judgments, the Supreme Court of India has held that the Judiciary can be considered a part of the State for the purpose of enforcing fundamental rights under the Constitution.

For instance, in the case of Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra (1967), the Supreme Court held that the judiciary is not an “other authority” under Article 12 but, in certain circumstances, may be amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court and Supreme Court. The court also held that the Judiciary is subject to the Constitution, and the power of judicial review is inherent in the judiciary to ensure that constitutional guarantees are not violated.

In R.S. Nayak v/s A.R. Antulay, 1984, the petitioner challenged the constitutionality of certain provisions of the Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation Act, 1974, which sought to transfer certain cases from the High Court to the Administrative Tribunals. The petitioner argued that the provisions violated the principle of separation of powers, which is a basic feature of the Constitution.

The Supreme Court, in its judgment, held that the Judiciary is not a “State” under Article 12 of the Indian Constitution. However, the court also held that the Judiciary is subject to the Constitution and must act in accordance with the principles of the Constitution, including the principles of separation of powers and judicial independence.

Conclusion

Article 12 of the Indian Constitution defines the term “State” and includes the government, Parliament, and all local or other authorities within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India. The term “other authorities” has been interpreted broadly by the Supreme Court to include any entity that performs a public function or exercises state-like power. The Ramana Dayaram Shetty case laid down guidelines to determine whether an entity is a “State” or an “other authority” under Article 12.

While the Judiciary is not specifically mentioned as an “other authority” under Article 12, it is considered a part of the constitutional framework of India and plays an essential role in upholding the rule of law and protecting fundamental rights. The Supreme Court has held that the Judiciary is subject to the Constitution and must act in accordance with its principles, including the principles of separation of powers and judicial independence.