Article 12 of the Indian Constitution: The Definition of ‘State’
Article 12 of the Indian Constitution: The Definition of ‘State’
Article 12’s definition of “State” is the cornerstone for enforcing Fundamental Rights, balancing state power, and ensuring accountability. Judicial interpretations have evolved to adapt to changing socio-economic conditions, emphasizing the principle of constitutional morality.
Ah, the “State” under Article 12 of the Indian Constitution — a term that has sparked as much debate as it has lawsuits. Imagine trying to fit an octopus into a box; that’s the legal community attempting to define what “State” means. Is it just the government? Does it include public corporations? Can we sue the President? Let’s unpack these mysteries and untangle the tentacles of Article 12.
Introduction: The importance of Article 12 lies in its role as the gateway to Fundamental Rights. It ensures that these rights can be enforced against entities considered as “State.” Article 12 forms the bedrock of the relationship between individuals and authorities, making it crucial for interpreting state accountability under Part III of the Constitution.
The Text of Article 12: Article 12 reads:
“In this part, unless the context otherwise requires, ‘the State’ 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 Government of India.”
This seemingly simple provision opens the door to complex interpretations.
Breaking Down Article 12:
- Inclusive Definition: The use of the word “includes” indicates that Article 12 is not exhaustive but illustrative. It expands the scope of “State” to accommodate various entities. This open-ended nature is the reason for diverse judicial interpretations.
- Entities Covered Under Article 12:
- Government and Parliament of India: The central government and its legislative branch are unequivocally included. For instance, laws passed by Parliament can be challenged for violating Fundamental Rights.
- Government and Legislature of Each State: Similar to the Centre, state governments and legislatures fall under the ambit of “State.” This ensures accountability at both levels of governance.
- Local Authorities: Refers to municipalities, panchayats, and other local governance bodies. For instance, in State of Gujarat v. Shantilal Mangaldas, the Ahmedabad Borough Municipality was deemed a “State.”
- Other Authorities: This phrase has been the subject of extensive judicial scrutiny. The key question is whether it includes bodies performing public duties but not explicitly governmental in nature.
The Journey Through Judicial Interpretations:
1. Early Ejusdem Generis Approach: In University of Madras v. Santa Bai, the Madras High Court applied the principle of ejusdem generis. It held that “other authorities” must share characteristics with government entities, such as performing sovereign functions. This narrow view restricted the ambit of Article 12.
2. Rejection of Ejusdem Generis: The Supreme Court, in Rajasthan SEB v. Mohanlal, expanded the interpretation, holding that “other authorities” are not confined to bodies performing sovereign functions. The Electricity Board was included under Article 12 due to its statutory powers.
3. Instrumentality and Agency Test:
Introduced in Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagatram, this test examines whether an entity is an instrumentality or agency of the government. Public corporations like ONGC, LIC, and IFC were held as “State” based on their statutory and public functions.
Refined further in Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India, the Court emphasized factors such as:
- Deep and pervasive government control.
- Public importance of functions.
- State funding and monopoly status.
4. Ajay Hasia’s Six-Fold Test: In Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi, the Court formalized six criteria to determine an entity’s inclusion under Article 12:
- Government holding entire share capital.
- State funding of expenses.
- State-conferred monopoly.
- Deep and pervasive control.
- Functions of public importance.
- Transfer of government department to a corporation.
5. Refinements and Exceptions:
- In Pradeep Kumar Biswas, the Court adopted a broader view, overruling restrictive interpretations.
- In Zee Telefilms Ltd. v. Union of India, BCCI was not considered a “State” due to lack of deep government control, despite performing public functions. However, the Court left room for writ jurisdiction under Article 226.
Proviso and Horizontality in Article 12:
- Authorities Under Government Control: The phrase “under the control of the Government of India” extends Article 12 to entities outside Indian territory, such as trust territories managed by India.
- Horizontal Applicability: Articles 15(2) and 17 extend certain Fundamental Rights to private entities. For example, prohibiting untouchability under Article 17 applies to private individuals as well.
Conclusion: Article 12’s definition of “State” is the cornerstone for enforcing Fundamental Rights, balancing state power, and ensuring accountability. Judicial interpretations have evolved to adapt to changing socio-economic conditions, emphasizing the principle of constitutional morality. As debates continue, Article 12 remains a dynamic and pivotal provision, embodying the Constitution’s spirit of justice and equality.
This comprehensive analysis dives into each aspect of Article 12 with legal precision and a touch of humor to ensure the “State” doesn’t remain a mystery. Let me know if you’d like further clarifications or additional examples!