Is the Judiciary a “State” under Article 12 of the Indian Constitution?

Is the Judiciary a “State” under Article 12 of the Indian Constitution?

While it is clearly a “State” when exercising administrative functions, its judicial and legislative-like powers continue to pose interpretational challenges.

Introduction

“Is the judiciary a “State” under Article 12?” This question has baffled legal scholars and practitioners alike. While Article 12 does not explicitly mention the judiciary, Indian jurisprudence has treated it as a “State” in specific contexts, particularly when exercising administrative powers. However, the judiciary’s status as a “State” while exercising judicial functions is riddled with complexities and contradictions. Let’s dive into the details — exploring the relevant provisions, landmark cases, and judicial reasoning — to uncover the answer.

Provisions of Article 12

Article 12 defines the term “State” to include:

• The Government and Parliament of India;
• The Government and Legislature of each State;
• All local or other authorities within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India.

While “judiciary” is not explicitly mentioned, it is often interpreted to fall within “other authorities” when performing certain functions. This interpretation forms the crux of the debate.

Key Cases and Judicial Interpretation

1. Judiciary as “State” in Administrative Functions

• Rule-Making Powers: The judiciary has been deemed a “State” when exercising rule-making powers under Article 145 (for the Supreme Court) or equivalent provisions for High Courts. For instance:
• Supreme Court Rules, 1950 (Rule 12 of Order 35): These rules required security for costs in Article 32 petitions. The Supreme Court held that such rules impeded the fundamental right under Article 32 and constituted an infringement.

2. Judiciary as “State” in Judicial Functions

The matter becomes complicated when judicial orders are challenged for violating fundamental rights. Here are pivotal cases:

a. Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra (1966):

• Facts: A Bombay High Court judge prohibited the publication of certain evidence in newspapers.
• Issue: Did this judicial order violate Article 19(1)(a)?
• Judgment: The Supreme Court ruled that judicial orders do not violate fundamental rights. Instead, defects in such orders should be remedied through appellate procedures, not writ petitions under Article 32.

b. A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak (1988):

The Supreme Court revisited its stance from Naresh Shridhar. A seven-judge bench impliedly overruled the earlier view and identified instances where judicial orders could be recalled under writ jurisdiction, including:

• Violation of a fundamental right.
• Violation of natural justice.
• Mistake of the court.
• Fraudulent judgment.
• Orders passed without jurisdiction.

Judiciary’s Legislative-like Functions and Their Challenges

In certain cases, the judiciary has issued guidelines akin to legislative measures. Examples include:

Unni Krishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1993):

• The court mandated private colleges to reserve 50% of seats as subsidized.

Highway Liquor Ban (State of Tamil Nadu v. K. Balu, 2017):

• The court ordered the closure of liquor shops within 500 meters of highways.

Such guidelines, affecting broad sections of society, raise the question: Should they be scrutinized under fundamental rights? The Supreme Court and High Courts have not clarified this aspect conclusively.

Tests for Determining “State” under Article 12

1. Legal/Constitutional Test

• Bodies directly created by the Constitution or law, such as municipal corporations or statutory corporations, are generally considered “State.”

2. Functional Test

• Authorities performing public functions or functions closely associated with the government — regardless of legal form — are treated as “State.”
• For instance, the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) was deemed to perform public functions in Zee Telefilms v. Union of India (2005), although it wasn’t directly classified as a “State.”

The Vexed Nature of Judiciary as “State”

The judiciary’s dual role adds layers of complexity:

Administrative Role:

• When dealing with employees, staff, or rules, it unequivocally acts as a “State” under Article 12.

Judicial Role:

• Judicial orders themselves are generally not subject to fundamental rights scrutiny unless they fall into exceptions identified in A.R. Antulay.

Legislative-like Role:

• Guidelines impacting the public at large blur the line between judicial and legislative powers, making them susceptible to challenges.

Conclusion

The judiciary’s status as a “State” under Article 12 is not a simple yes-or-no question. While it is clearly a “State” when exercising administrative functions, its judicial and legislative-like powers continue to pose interpretational challenges. Future jurisprudence must address these ambiguities, ensuring a balanced approach that respects both judicial independence and constitutional accountability.