Meaning

The Indian Constitution’s Part III covers the Fundamental Rights portion. Since fundamental rights protect citizens’ rights to speech, expression, religion, protection from exploitation, education, language, and culture, as well as constitutional remedies, the term “State” has come to refer to all government entities whose actions may be challenged in court if they violate any of these rights. And Article 12 of the Indian Constitution provides such definition. Technically, Article 12 by itself is not a fundamental right, but it does define the term “State” for the Fundamental Rights covered by Articles 14 to 35.

According to John Locke, the “common good” or “good of mankind” is the goal of the state. A state is an entity that is created to preserve the life and uphold the dignity of its citizens. Its goal is to uphold the rights of each individual in order to preserve their lifestyle and sense of dignity. If the state is not performing its duty, an individual cannot have rights.

The Supreme Court noted that Part III’s goal is to defend the freedoms and liberties granted by this section from state incursion. The themes of human rights, individual dignity, and national unity and dignity are present in Parts III and IV. These components function as the state’s respective Positive Duty, which is to act for the welfare of the Person, and Negative Obligation, which is not to interfere with the Individual’s Liberty.

Definition & Essentials

“In this part, unless the context otherwise requires, “the State” includes the Government and Parliament of India and 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 Government of India.”

According to Article 12 the term ‘State’ includes:
 The Government and Parliament of India i.e., Executive and Legislature of the Union(Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha).
 The Government and the Legislature of each State i.e., Executive and Legislature of States.(Vidhan Sabha and Vidhan Parishad).
 All Local Authorities.(municipalities, District Boards, Panchayats, Improvement Trust, Port Trust, Mining Settlement Boards etc.
 Other Authorities within the territory of India, or under the control of the Central Government.

1. Government (Union and state) Government:

the institutions of society that make laws, such as the legislative, executive, and judicial branches as well as the administrative and executive branches. The legislative branch is made up of the lower house, Lok Sabha, and the upper house, Rajya Sabha. The president of India is the head of state and can wield power either directly or through officers who report to him. The Judiciary is comprised of the Supreme Court, High Courts, and numerous district-level civil, criminal, and family courts.

2. Parliament and State Legislature

Parliament: The parliament comprises of the President of India, the lower house of the parliament that is the Lok Sabha as well as the upper house of the Parliament, that is the Rajya Sabha. State Legislature: The legislative body at the state level is the State Legislature. It comprises of the state legislative assembly and the state legislative council.

3. Local Authorities

According to Webster’s Dictionary; “Authority” meansa person or body exercising power to command. When read under Article 12, the word authority means the power to make laws (or orders, regulations, bye-laws, notification etc.) which have the force of law. It also includes the power to enforce those laws.

The term Local authority includes the following:

a.Local government: According to Entry 5 of the List II of VII Schedule ‘local government’ includes a municipal corporation, improvement trust, district boards, mining settlement authorities and other local authorities for the purpose of local self-government or village administration.

b.Village Panchayat: In the case of Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1996 (2) SCC 215 , it was held that within the meaning of the term local authority, village panchayat is also included.

In Mohammad Yasin v. Town Area Committee AIR 1952 SC 115, the Supreme Court held that to be characterized as a ‘local authority’ the authority concerned must;

Have a separate legal existence as a corporate body

Not be a mere government agency but must be legally an independent entity

Function in a defined area

Be wholly or partly, directly or indirectly, elected by the inhabitants of the area

Enjoy a certain degree of autonomy (complete or partial)

4. Other Authorities

In Rajasthan Electricity Board v. Mohan Lal AIR 1967 SC 1857 , the Supreme Court held that ‘other authorities’ would include all authorities created by the constitution or statute on whom powers are conferred by law. Such statutory authority need not be engaged in performing governmentorsovereignfunctions.Thecourtemphasizedthatitisimmaterialthatthe power conferred on the body is of a commercial nature or not.

5. Territory of India

Article 1(3) of the Constitution of India states that; “The territory of India shall comprise-(a)the territories of the States;(b) the Union territories specified in the First Schedule; and (c) such other territories as may be acquired.” In the case of Masthan Sahib v. Chief Commissioner, the court held that the territory of India for the purposes of Article 12 means the territory of India as defined in Article 1(3).

6.Control of the government of India

Under Article 12, the control of the Government does not necessarily mean that the body must be under the absolute direction of the government. It merely means that the government must have some form of control over the functioning of the body.Just because a body is a statutory body, does not mean that it is ‘State’. Both statutory, as well as non-statutory bodies, can be considered as a ‘State’ if they get financial resources from the government and the government exercises a deep pervasive control over it.

DOCTRINE OF INSTRUMENTALITY

The ambiguities laid to the establishment with contradicting interpretation were given a kind of stability with the evolution the doctrine so as to provide a better interpretation. Therefore to provide the clear and liberal interpretation the supreme court in the case of Ramana Dayaram Shetty v International Airport Authority of India:AIR 1979 SC 1628 it held pointed out that the corporations acting as instrumentality or agency of government would obviously be subject to the same limitations in the field of constitutional or administrative law as the government itself, though in the eyes of law they would be distinct and independent legal entities. Held that if a body is an agency or instrumentality of the government it may be an authority in art 12. The court also laid down few of the test which can test that the authority can fall within the limit of authority in article 12 of the constitution. These tests are as follows:
The cumulative effect of all the following factors has to be seen:

1. “If the entire share capital of the corporation is held by government, it would go a long way towards indicating that the corporation is an instrumentality or agency of government.”
2. The existence of “deep and pervasive State control may afford an indication that the Corporation is a State agency or instrumentality.”
3. “It may also be a relevant factor…whether the corporation enjoys monopoly status which is State conferred or State protected.”
4. “If the functions of the corporation are of public importance and closely related to governmental functions, it would be a relevant factor in classifying the corporation as an instrumentality or agency of government.”
5. “Specifically, if a department of government is transferred to a corporation, it would be a strong factor supportive of this inference” of the corporation being an instrumentality or agency of government.
   However Court said that these test are not conclusive but illustrative only and will have to be used with care and caution.

However Court said that these test are not conclusive but illustrative only and will have to be used with care and caution

WHETHER ‘STATE’ INCLUDES JUDICIARY?

Judiciary in India to be included under the ambit of ‘State’ arose in the case of Naresh v. State of Maharashtra 1967 AIR, 1 1966 SCR (3) 744. which observed that “while exercising the rule making powers the judiciary is covered by the expression state with Art.12 but while performing its judicial functions it is not so included.” Thereby a court may be sued for a violation of the fundamental right to the extent only till it is performing its administrative function. The point it began it judicial function it does not violate any fundamental right and cannot be taken as “State”.

IF A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT CAN BE CLAIMED OR ENFORCED BY THE STATE ITSELF

In State of West Bengal v. Union of India,(1964) 1 SCR 371 (430) SINHA, C.J., for the majority, set forth a proposition that under the Indian Constitution fundamental rights may be claimed not only by individuals and corporations but sometimes also by the State. His Lordship was obliged to assert this proposition as a concomitant of his major conclusion that the Union may acquire the property of a State Government by making a law of compulsory acquisition under Article 31 (2) gives rise to a right to compensation in favour of the expropriated owner which should logically belong to the State when property belonging to it is compulsorily acquired by the Union.

Most of the Fundamental Rights are claimed against the State and its instrumentality and not against private bodies. Article 13 (2) of Constitution of India bars the State from making any laws infringing any Fundamental Rights. Article 124 of Constitution of India gives an extended significance to the term State. Article 12 clarifies that the term State occurring in Article 13 (2) of Constitution of India or any other provision concerning Fundamental Rights, has an expansive meaning.

Sanjaya Bahel v. Union of India & Others 2020 SCC Online SC 25 – The case dealt with the issue of the immunity enjoyed by United Nations Organizations (UNO) under the United Nations (Privileges and Immunities) Act, 1947. Delhi High Court, in May 2019, declared that UNO is not a ‘State’ defined under Article 12 of the Indian Constitution

Is Judiciary a State under Article 12?

Article 12 does not specifically refer to the judiciary (Supreme Courts, High Courts, or State/District Courts) as a ‘State’. Therefore, the judicial branch cannot enact laws that violate the fundamental rights on their own.
Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra Case,AIR (2002) 4 SCC 388.” the Supreme Court reiterated that Article 12 does not apply to Superior Courts of Justice and that Fundamental Rights cannot be violated by any judicial process.

Case Laws:

in State of Assam Vs Barak Upatyaka D. U. Karmachari, AIR 2009 SC 2249 the Supreme Court held that the fact that a Corporate body or Co-operative Society answers the definition of State does not make it the State Government nor will the employees of such a body, become holders of civil posts or employees of the State Government. Therefore, the fact that a Corporation may answer the definition of State does not mean that the State Government is liable to bear and pay the salaries of its employees.

The Supreme Court in Srikant Vs Vasantrao & Ors., AIR 2006 SC 918 said that the very inclusive definition of State under Article 12 by referring to Government of India, the Government of each of the States and the local and other authorities, made it clear that a State Government and a local or other authorities, are different and that they fall under a common definition only for the purpose of Part-III of the Constitution of India.

Conclusion:

According to Article 12, a body may be under the control of the government without necessarily being completely under its control. It only implies that the government must exercise some level of control over how the body works. A body is not automatically considered to be “state” just because it is a statutory entity. Both statutory and non-statutory organisations may be seen as “States” if they receive funding from the government and the government maintains a tight grip on them.