Constitution of Bharat: Article 12: Part 3

 

Here's a provision-wise interpretation of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, focusing on key judicial precedents that have shaped the understanding of what constitutes "State" under this article:

Article 12:

"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;
• All local or other authorities within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India."

Government and Parliament of India; Government and Legislature of each State:

• Union of India v. R.C. Jain (1981): This case laid down criteria for what constitutes a "local authority". Here, the Delhi Development Authority was held to be a local authority because it was entrusted with functions usually entrusted to municipalities.

Local or Other Authorities:

1. Definition of "Local Authorities":
   • Union of India v. R.C. Jain (1981): The Supreme Court held that bodies performing functions traditionally assigned to municipalities would fall under 'local authorities'. This includes authorities like improvement trusts, port trusts, or mining settlement boards.
2. Interpretation of "Other Authorities":
   • University of Madras v. Shanta Bai (1954): Initially, the Madras High Court applied the principle of 'ejusdem generis', suggesting that only authorities performing governmental or sovereign functions could be considered "other authorities". However, this was later expanded.
   • Ujjam Bai v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1962): The Supreme Court rejected the principle of ejusdem generis, stating that there was no common genus among the entities listed in Article 12, thereby broadening the interpretation to include more bodies.
   • Rajasthan State Electricity Board v. Mohanlal (1967): Here, it was clarified that an authority does not need to perform governmental functions to be considered "State" under Article 12; it must merely be created by a statute and have powers conferred by law.
   • Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagatram (1975): The Supreme Court held that bodies like the Life Insurance Corporation (LIC), Oil and Natural Gas Corporation (ONGC), and the Industrial Finance Corporation (IFC), which were created by statutes to perform functions close to governmental, would be considered "State".
   • Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology (2002): This case further expanded the scope by holding that even non-statutory bodies under significant government control or funding could be deemed "State".
3. Judiciary as State:
   • A.R.Antulay v. R.S.Nayak (1988): The judiciary is considered "State" when it exercises non-judicial functions like rule-making, but not when exercising judicial functions.

     
4. Monopoly and Control by State:
   • R.D. Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India (1979): Justice P.N. Bhagwati laid down a test to determine if a body is an instrumentality or agency of the State, including the extent of state control, financial resources, and monopoly status.
5. Autonomous Bodies and Societies:
   • Sabhajit Tewary v. Union of India (1975): The Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), a society, was initially not considered "State" due to its non-statutory nature, but this was later reconsidered.

This judicial evolution shows how the interpretation of "State" under Article 12 has expanded to ensure that the enforcement of fundamental rights is not narrowly construed, thereby providing citizens with broader protection against various forms of governmental action.