Evolution of "State" under Article 12 of the Indian Constitution Your Guide to Legal Knowledge and Insights

Evolution of "State" under Article 12 of the Indian Constitution

The Indian Constitution guarantees fundamental rights under Part III, which aim to protect individuals from arbitrary actions by the State. Article 12 defines the term "State" and establishes the entities against which these fundamental rights can be enforced. The understanding of "State" has evolved significantly through judicial interpretations, extending the definition to include a variety of bodies beyond traditional government departments. This evolution reflects the judiciary's progressive approach in ensuring that individuals’ rights are protected, even against non-traditional entities performing public functions.

Understanding Article 12

Article 12 of the Constitution states:

“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.”

From this definition, it is clear that Article 12 includes:

Government and Parliament of India: This covers the executive (Government) and legislative (Parliament) wings of the Union.

Government and Legislature of States: This includes the executive and legislative wings of individual States.

Local Authorities: Entities like municipalities, panchayats, district boards, improvement trusts, etc., fall under this category.

Other Authorities: This is the most contentious phrase and has been the subject of extensive judicial interpretation, shaping the understanding of "State" under Article 12.

Constitution of India By V N Shukla

Judicial Interpretation and Evolution

The scope of the term "State" under Article 12 has been progressively broadened by the judiciary through a series of landmark judgments. Let us examine this evolution step by step:

University of Madras v. Shantha Bai, 1953 (The Ejusdem Generis Approach)

In this case, the Hon’ble Madras High Court introduced the principle of ‘ejusdem generis,’ which means "of the same kind or nature." This principle asserts that only authorities carrying out governmental or sovereign functions fall under the term ‘other authorities.’

The Court clarified that private entities, including individuals or juristic entities like unaided universities, do not qualify as ‘State’ under Article 12 of the Constitution.

Rajasthan Electricity Board v. Mohan Lal

The Supreme Court ruled that "other authorities" include bodies created by a statute and vested with the power to make rules or regulations that have the force of law. The Court emphasized that such authorities must be held accountable as they perform public functions.

Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagat Ram (1975)

This case dealt with statutory corporations such as ONGC, LIC, and IFC, which were created under specific laws. The Court held that such corporations, although distinct from the government, are "State" under Article 12 because:

They are created by statutes.
They exercise significant public functions.
They are instrumentalities of the State.

Note: This judgment marked a shift from a narrow structural approach to a more functional one.

Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib (1981)

This case introduced a practical test to determine whether an entity is a "State." The Supreme Court laid down six criteria to decide whether an organization qualifies as "State":

Whether the government owns the entire share capital of the entity.
Whether there is deep and pervasive control by the government.
Whether the entity performs public functions or duties.
Whether the entity enjoys monopoly status conferred by the State.
Whether the entity is heavily dependent on government funding.
Whether the entity’s actions are akin to those of a State authority.

Application:
Educational institutions receiving substantial government aid were considered "State" because they perform public duties and are financially supported by the government.

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

This case refined the "instrumentality or agency" test. The Court ruled that any entity with substantial government control—be it financial, functional, or administrative—could be classified as "State." The test also included public duty as a significant factor. Thus, even entities with indirect government control but performing public functions were brought under Article 12.

Inclusion of Non-Traditional Entities

The judiciary expanded the ambit of "State" to include:

Statutory Corporations: Like ONGC, LIC, and others created through legislation.
Government-Aided Institutions: Schools, colleges, and hospitals receiving substantial funding and serving public interests.
Private Entities Performing Public Functions: Bodies like private universities or trusts managing public resources.
Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs): When private entities operate under government contracts to perform public services.

Example: Zee Telefilms Ltd. v. Union of India (2005)

In this case, the BCCI was not considered a "State" under Article 12 because it did not perform public functions nor was it controlled by the government. However, this judgment reiterated that functional and financial nexus is crucial in determining whether a private entity is a "State."

Key Highlights of the Evolution

Shift from Structural to Functional Approach:

Initially, only entities directly created by the government were considered "State."
Later, the focus shifted to the nature of functions performed (public duties) and the degree of government control.

Inclusiveness for Public Accountability:

The judiciary ensured that entities exercising public power or utilizing public resources are held accountable under fundamental rights.

Private Entities and Public Functions:

Private entities performing public functions (e.g., private universities receiving aid) were brought under the purview of Article 12.

Flexibility and Adaptability:

The judiciary has maintained flexibility in interpreting "State" to adapt to evolving socio-economic structures, like PPPs and private sector involvement in public service.

Conclusion

The definition of "State" under Article 12 has undergone a remarkable transformation through judicial interpretation. This evolution ensures that entities performing public functions, whether governmental or private, are accountable under the Constitution. By adopting a functional approach and expanding the scope of "State," the judiciary has safeguarded the fundamental rights of citizens, ensuring justice, equality, and accountability in diverse spheres of public life. The dynamic interpretation of Article 12 underscores its importance in a rapidly changing society, where non-traditional entities increasingly wield public power.

Constitutional Law of India by Dr. J. N. Pandey