Judicial Perspectives: Expanding the Meaning of State Under Article 12

By HARSH_RAJ2324 Views: 17741

Article 12[1] of the Indian Constitution, State means the Government and Parliament of India, and the Government and Legislative Assembly of every State, and any local authority or other authority within India or under the control of the Government of India.

It is essential to understand the meaning of the term "State," as the Indian Constitution Part III fundamental rights only protect people from actions carried out by the State. It is prohibited for the State to infringe upon these fundamental rights or to restrict them by legislation or other legal means. However, the question comes to mind: What other authorities will fall under the definition of the "State"? and how to determine it to enable the enforcement of fundamental rights against them.

If the State violates any individual fundamental rights, they can move to either the Supreme Court or the High Court as per Article 32[2] and Article 226[3] of the Indian Constitution, respectively. It is essential to understand the cardinal importance of the Indian Constitution being an elastic document. Courts have the right to construe it to serve the best interests and objectives of the populace and the prevailing circumstances. The judicial review of actions taken by authorities created under statutes that carry out State tasks is made possible by including the word "other authorities" in Article 12.

Judicial Interpretation of "Other Authorities"

The expression "other authorities" in Article 12 has undergone judicial explorations which sought to identify the extent of the bodies other than the traditional organs of governmental authority, which can be deemed to be 'State'. This includes statutory authorities, public sector enterprises, and other such enterprises which serve as arms of the government.

Courts have also evolved tests and criteria that help assess whether a particular entity falls under the rubric of "other authority" as enshrined in Article 12. Such considerations and parameters include substantial state control, performance of public duties, monopolistic character, and economic as well as operational control. Such parameters are meant to be the yardsticks that help the courts determine if such an organization can be termed 'State' and made liable under the Constitution.

Expanding the Interpretation of "State": Judicial Precedents

Many landmark rulings have helped resolve the issue concerning Article 12 purview and who constitutes the "State." Such decisions have greatly influenced the attitude of the courts towards the understanding of "other authorities" and accountability for which all bodies and individuals exercising public functions are responsible.

The question before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Rajasthan State Electricity Board, Jaipur v. Mohan Lal[4] case was whether statutory corporations such as the Rajasthan State Electricity Board can be construed to be "other authorities" within the meaning of Article 12. In that ruling, the Supreme Court stated that 'the term, other authorities in Article 12, shall also include statutorily created bodies and corporations set up by the government and carrying out government or public service functions. The importance of this case is that it provided a wider interpretation of the term 'other authorities' by including statutory authorities carrying out governmental functions.

The Indian Supreme Court in Sukhdev Singh v. Bagatram Sardar Singh Raghuvanshi[5] held that statutory corporations like ONGC, LIC, and IFCI are considered 'other authorities' for the purpose of Article 12 of the Constitution and can be governed. In this respect, the court tested the entities with the 'instrumentality or agency' test to ascertain whether such entities function as a mere extension of the State, given the public functions they perform and the degree of control the Government exerts over them. The purpose of this ruling was to widen the scope of 'other authorities' contained in Article 12, such that there is enhanced protection of the rights of all citizens by subjecting public bodies to greater scrutiny.

In the case of R.D. Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India[6], the Supreme Court held that the International Airport Authority, which is a statutory body, is an "other authority" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Indian Constitution. Thus, it is bound by constitutional limitations, especially for fundamental rights.

The court enumerated the following positive indices to include anybody under Article 12:
financial control, functional control, monopoly, and public services rendered. This judgment expanded the meaning of "other authorities" contained in Article 12 and provided for the extension of constitutional duties to an even greater number of public institutions and statutory bodies.

The Supreme Court in Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi [7]ruled that registered societies, such as the Regional Engineering College, could be classified as "other authorities" under Article 12 of the Indian Constitution. Following the criteria laid out in R.D. Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India, the court concluded that the society's public nature, financial support from the government, and control over its affairs were important considerations in designating it as an "other authority." The court concluded that society qualified as a "State" under Article 12 as it was an "instrumentality or agency" of the government.

This ruling expanded the scope of Article 12, ensuring greater accountability of organizations receiving government support or discharging public duties, subjecting them to constitutional scrutiny, especially regarding fundamental rights.

In Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology[8], The Indian Supreme Court ruled that CSIR could be considered an "other authority" under Article 12 of the Indian Constitution, as it was a registered society with easy access to government funds and is widely controlled by the government. Applying the instrumentality or agency test, the court could state that CSIR, being a registered society, worked as an instrumentality of the State and consequently came within the definition of "State" in Article 12.

This ruling entrenched the doctrine that even registered societies that are controlled by the government and funded largely by the government while carrying out a public purpose are to be regarded as a 'State'. It also made fundamental rights and other constitutional obligations applicable to many more institutions and bodies engaged in activities that can be regarded as governmental.

These criteria guide the assessment of whether an organization is an 'other authority' as envisaged in Article 12, to bind it with constitutional requirements such as the respect for fundamental rights. A significant question that arose in the case of Zee Telefilms Ltd. v. Union of India[9] was whether the Board of Control for Cricket in India could be classified as an 'other authority' in terms of Article 12 of the Constitution of India.

It was noted by the court that the BCCI takes up and carries out activities that pertain to public interest, especially in the organization and control of cricket in the country, India. However, it stressed that for an entity to be treated as 'the State' for the purpose of Article 12, it is necessary that there is significant government control. The judgment introduced the principle that no matter how public-interested a body may operate; this standing alone does not place it within the scope of Article 12.

In order to assess the inclusion of a body within the definition of the State, let us take the example of NCERT enshrined within the State or not. In this scenario, applying the test elaborated on in the Pradeep Kumar Biswas case, NCERT is regarded as falling within the purview of 'State' as provided for by Article 12 of the Constitution of India. It is a subordinate body of the Ministry of Education and is government-controlled in terms of both personnel and finances.

The NCERT also engages in essential public work such as the development of instructional materials and textbooks which Judiciary is a State or not?
The judiciary is not a state when it is performing judicial function, but when the judiciary is performing any function other than judicial, it will be treated as a state. e.g., When a High Court is organizing the Judicial Exam, if any candidate faces a violation of his/her Article 14[10] or any other fundamental right, then he/she can approach the court for remedy in The Judiciary will come in the category of the State because the Judiciary is performing the administrative function.

In the well-known decision of Amit Kumar Roy v. State of Jharkhand, the petitioner Amit Kumar Roy assailed the recruitment process instituted by the Jharkhand High Court for the appointment of Civil Judges. Roy confronted the selection process as a gross abuse of discretion, an erroneous marking system, the absence of interviews, non-adherence to prescribed procedures, etc. He further asserted that the evaluation of the candidates was their own, which compromised the integrity of the competition.

Reinforcing the already established principles, the Jharkhand High Court held that the recruitment process should be transparent and fair, particularly stressing the need to comply with due processes concerning public recruitment. The ruling empowered candidates to apply for judicial review against the recruitment process, which seemed to be capricious or unfair to the candidates, promoting the latter's right to a justifiable recruitment process and reconfirming the obligation of the public authorities, the courts included, to these administrative functions like recruitment.

Conclusion
In conclusion, Article 12 of the Constitution of India provides an expansive definition of "States" not just confined to the government and the legislature, but also to all other statutory bodies, corporations, and any other authority as long as they are established by law. By virtue of judicial activism, it is recognized that "other authorities" including those performing public function and which are under reasonable control of the government, have constitutional obligations, especially in regard to fundamental rights.

The judiciary, in as much as it performs adjudicative functions, is excluded from the definition of State, but it falls within the scope of the concept of State when it performs administrative functions. This creates a system of checks and balances to ensure the respect of constitutional rights by the different organs of the State.

End Notes: