This article has been written by Sameera Khan from Amity Law School, Noida. Edited and published by Risha Fatema.

Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION:

Fundamental rights are a set of rights guaranteed to all citizens of India under Part III of the Constitution. These rights are universal, applying equally to every citizen regardless of their race, place of birth, religion, caste, or gender. They are legally recognized as rights that require strong protection from government interference and cannot be violated by governmental authorities. It’s important to note that fundamental rights are enforceable only against the State or its instrumentalities, not against private individuals or entities.

Article 12 of the Indian Constitution plays a crucial role by defining the scope of the term “State” as used throughout the Constitution. According to Article 12, the term “State” includes not only the central government and Parliament of India but also the government and legislature of each state, as well as all local authorities and other authorities within the territory of India or under the control of the Indian government.

The significance of Article 12 lies in its clarification of which entities fall under the definition of “State” for the purposes of fundamental rights provisions such as Articles 14 (equality before law), 15 (prohibition of discrimination), and 21 (protection of life and personal liberty). By encompassing local and other authorities within its ambit, Article 12 ensures that these entities are obligated to adhere to the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Any violation of these rights by such authorities can be challenged and remedied through legal recourse.

Article 12 serves to uphold the supremacy of fundamental rights by extending their application to governmental and quasi-governmental bodies, thereby safeguarding citizens’ liberties and ensuring accountability in governance.

WHAT COME WITHIN THE AMBIT OF ARTICLE 12?

India, as a modern Welfare State, has seen an expansion in its functions over time, particularly in drafting and implementing welfare policies and schemes. This role necessitates a firm commitment from the State to protect and uphold the fundamental rights of individuals.

Article 12 of the Indian Constitution plays a pivotal role in defining the term “State” within the context of fundamental rights. It delineates the entities that fall under its jurisdiction and establishes who can be held accountable for violations of these rights. This provision is crucial as it specifies the scope and applicability of the term “State” across various fundamental rights provisions, including Articles 14 (equality before law), 15 (prohibition of discrimination), and 21 (protection of life and personal liberty).

For Part III of the Constitution, Article 12 defines the State to include:
1. The Government and Parliament of India, comprising the Executive and Legislature of the Union.
2. The Government and Legislature of each State, encompassing the Executive and Legislature of the respective States.
3. All local authorities and other authorities situated within the territory of India.
4. Any local or other authorities that are under the control of the Government of India.

This comprehensive definition ensures that all governmental and quasi-governmental bodies operating within India’s jurisdiction are bound by the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution. It underscores the State’s obligation to protect these rights and ensures that violations by any covered entity can be legally challenged and remedied.
Article 12 serves as a cornerstone in safeguarding fundamental rights by clearly outlining the entities responsible for upholding these rights and ensuring accountability in governance across all levels of administration within the country.

LOCAL AUTHORITY:

“Authority” within the context of Article 12 of the Indian Constitution carries a specific legal meaning, denoting a person or body vested with the power to command and enforce laws, regulations, orders, notifications, and other legal provisions. This interpretation is crucial as it defines the entities that fall under the ambit of the term “State” when considering the enforcement and protection of fundamental rights.

Under Section 3(31) of the General Clauses Act, 1897, the term “Local Authority” is further clarified to encompass various bodies entrusted by the government with specific responsibilities or management, typically through the provision of funds. This definition serves to outline the breadth of bodies that qualify as local authorities under Indian law.

As per Entry 5 of List II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution, “local government” comprises entities such as municipal corporations, improvement trusts, district boards, mining settlement authorities, and other similar bodies. These entities are established for the purpose of local self-government or village administration, thereby exercising significant administrative and regulatory functions within their respective jurisdictions.

The case of Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab established that village panchayats are also considered local authorities. Village panchayats play a crucial role in rural governance, overseeing local administration, development initiatives, and community welfare activities. They operate under the statutory framework provided by state laws and regulations, ensuring grassroots governance and representation.

In summary, the term “Local Authority” under Indian law encompasses a diverse range of bodies entrusted with governance and administrative functions at the local level. These entities are instrumental in facilitating local self-government, addressing community needs, and implementing developmental policies within their designated areas of jurisdiction. This legal framework ensures that local authorities are accountable for their actions and responsibilities towards the citizens they serve, aligning with principles of democratic governance and decentralization of power in India.

OTHER AUTHORITY:

In the realm of constitutional law, the interpretation of the term “other authorities” under Article 12 of the Indian Constitution has been shaped by various judicial precedents, each providing nuanced perspectives based on the specific circumstances of the cases involved.

University of Madras v. Shanta Bai: In this case, the Madras High Court introduced the principle of “ejusdem generis,” which translates to “of like nature.” According to this principle, the term “other authorities” should be interpreted narrowly to include only those entities that perform governmental or sovereign functions similar to those explicitly listed in Article 12. Consequently, the court ruled that unaided universities, which primarily engage in educational and administrative functions rather than governmental duties, do not fall within the scope of “other authorities” under Article 12.

Ujjammabai v. State of U.P.: Contrary to the restrictive interpretation in the University of Madras case, the Supreme Court in Ujjammabai v. State of U.P. rejected the application of the ejusdem generis rule in interpreting “other authorities.” The court emphasized that the entities listed under Article 12, such as government bodies, local authorities, and statutory corporations, do not share a common genus or category that would justify narrowing the scope of “other authorities.” Therefore, the term should be construed broadly to include all bodies created by the Constitution or statute, irrespective of whether they perform governmental functions or not.

Rajasthan Electricity Board v. Mohan Lal: In this landmark case, the Supreme Court further clarified the scope of “other authorities.” The court held that “other authorities” encompass all bodies created by the Constitution or statute that are vested with powers under the law, regardless of whether these powers are governmental, commercial, or of any other nature. The key criterion is the conferment of powers by law, irrespective of the nature of functions performed by the authority. This ruling underscores that the definition of “other authorities” should not be limited by the nature of their functions but rather by the statutory or constitutional empowerment they possess.

These judicial interpretations reflect a progressive evolution in understanding the scope of “other authorities” under Article 12 of the Constitution. While early cases attempted to impose restrictive interpretations based on functional similarities, later decisions have emphasized a broader and more inclusive approach, focusing on the legal empowerment conferred upon entities by statute or constitutional mandate. This nuanced understanding ensures that all bodies exercising significant public functions under the authority of law are subject to the constitutional obligations and scrutiny envisaged under Article 12, thereby safeguarding fundamental rights against both governmental and quasi-governmental bodies alike.

The doctrine of the instrumentality of the state:

In the modern governance framework of India, the concept of “State” under Article 12 of the Constitution encompasses not only the government and its legislative bodies but also instrumentalities through which the state performs its functions. The doctrine of instrumentality recognizes that agencies acting on behalf of the government are also extensions of the state and are thus subject to constitutional obligations.

RD Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India (1979):

In the landmark case of RD Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India, the Supreme Court established that corporations acting as agents or instrumentalities of the government fall within the ambit of “other authorities” under Article 12. This decision highlighted the importance of considering entities performing public functions or vested with significant governmental powers as part of the state machinery.

Test to Determine Instrumentality:

To determine whether an entity qualifies as an instrumentality of the state, the Supreme Court has outlined a comprehensive five-point test in the RD Shetty case:

1. Financial Resources: If the state is the primary source of funding or if the entity enjoys significant financial support from the government.

2. Governmental Control: If the state exercises deep and pervasive control over the management and policies of the entity.

3. Public Importance: If the functions performed by the entity are of public importance or a governmental character.

4. Government Department Transfer: If a department of the government has been transferred to the corporation.

5. Monopoly Status or Protection: If the entity enjoys monopoly status conferred or protected by the state.

Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagatram (1975) and Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib (1981):

In Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagatram, the Supreme Court emphasized that direct financial aid is not the sole criterion; even indirect financial assistance, such as tax exemptions, can indicate governmental control.

In Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib, the court extended the concept to private educational institutions receiving substantial government funding. Such institutions, despite being privately managed, were deemed to be performing public functions and thus subject to constitutional scrutiny.

Zee Telefilms v. Union of India (2005):

In Zee Telefilms v. Union of India, the Supreme Court ruled that the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) does not qualify as a “State” under Article 12. This decision clarified that entities must not only perform public functions but also be created by statute and significantly controlled by the government to be considered part of the state machinery.

In conclusion, while Article 12 of the Indian Constitution broadly defines the “State,” judicial interpretations have refined their scope to include instrumentalities performing governmental functions or significantly controlled by the government. These interpretations ensure that entities wielding substantial public authority or performing essential public services are accountable under the constitutional framework, safeguarding fundamental rights against both governmental and quasi-governmental bodies alike.

Whether the state include the judiciary?

In the context of Article 12 of the Indian Constitution, which defines the scope of “State” for the purpose of fundamental rights, there exists a crucial distinction between the judicial and non-judicial functions of the courts. This distinction is pivotal in determining whether the judiciary falls within the ambit of “State.”

Judicial Functions vs. Non-Judicial Functions:

Judicial Functions: When courts perform judicial functions such as adjudicating disputes, interpreting laws, and delivering judgments, they are not considered part of the “State” under Article 12. This means that judicial decisions themselves cannot be challenged as violating fundamental rights. The judiciary exercises its inherent powers independently to uphold constitutional values and rights.

Non-Judicial Functions: However, when courts engage in non-judicial functions, such as administrative decisions, rule-making, or any action that resembles executive or administrative functions, they may fall within the definition of “State” under Article 12. In such cases, their actions are subject to constitutional scrutiny and can be challenged if they infringe upon fundamental rights.

Judicial Pronouncements and Case Law:

Several landmark cases have shaped the understanding of whether the judiciary qualifies as a “State” under Article 12:

– Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra: The Supreme Court reaffirmed that fundamental rights cannot be violated by judicial proceedings themselves. It clarified that superior courts of justice while exercising judicial functions, do not come under Article 12.

– Ratlal vs. State of Bombay (1954): The court held that the judiciary does not fall under the provisions of Article 12. This decision underscored the independence of the judiciary in its adjudicative role.

– Naresh vs. the State of Maharashtra (1980): It was established that fundamental rights are not infringed by the orders of the court, and no writ can be issued against a High Court in its judicial capacity. However, the judgment emphasized that a High Court judge, while performing non-judicial functions, could be considered part of the state machinery.

– A.R. Antulay vs. R.S. Nayak (1988) and N.S. Mirajkar vs. State of Maharashtra (1967): These cases highlighted the dual nature of the judiciary’s role. When exercising rule-making powers or administrative functions related to the judiciary’s internal management, it may be considered as part of the state. However, when exercising purely judicial powers, it operates independently.

While the judiciary plays a vital role in upholding fundamental rights through its judicial functions, it does not fall under the definition of “State” under Article 12 when performing adjudicative duties. This distinction ensures that judicial independence is preserved, allowing the judiciary to uphold constitutional principles without interference from other branches of government. However, when the judiciary engages in non-judicial activities that resemble executive or administrative functions, it may be subject to constitutional scrutiny under Article 12. This nuanced approach balances the principles of judicial autonomy with accountability to constitutional values.

CONCLUSION:

In conclusion, the evolution of the term “State” under Article 12 of the Indian Constitution, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, has expanded the scope of entities responsible for upholding fundamental rights. Through its rulings, the judiciary has broadened the application of constitutional protections to encompass both statutory and non-statutory bodies, emphasizing their roles as instrumentalities or agencies of the government. This approach ensures that fundamental rights can be enforced against a diverse array of entities, thereby reinforcing the Constitution’s commitment to justice, liberty, equality, and fraternity for all citizens.