Article 12 of Indian Constitution, Definition, Case Laws

Article 12 of Indian Constitution is a foundational provision under Part 3 of the Indian Constitution which deals with Fundamental Rights. It defines the term “State” for the purpose of enforcing these rights against authorities that exercise power. Since Fundamental Rights are primarily enforceable against the State, understanding its scope becomes essential. 

The Definition of the State provided in Article 12 is inclusive and not exhaustive, allowing courts to expand its meaning through interpretation. This ensures that citizens are protected not only from direct actions of the government but also from indirect actions of bodies functioning under its control or authority.

Article 12 of Indian Constitution Provisions

Article 12 of Indian Constitution defines “State” broadly to ensure effective protection of Fundamental Rights against all relevant authorities and bodies.

• Government and Parliament of India: This includes both executive and legislative organs of the Union. It covers the President, Parliament, ministries, departments and institutions functioning under government control, ensuring accountability for actions affecting Fundamental Rights.
• Government and Legislature of States: It includes State Executive and State Legislatures such as Legislative Assembly and Council. All departments and authorities under state governments are covered, including Union Territories, ensuring rights protection at regional levels.
• Local Authorities: Local bodies like municipalities, district boards and panchayats fall within this definition. These authorities manage local governance and public services and their actions are subject to Fundamental Rights enforcement under Article 12.
• Other Authorities: This term is not defined but interpreted widely by courts. It includes statutory and non statutory bodies like LIC, ONGC and other agencies performing public functions or operating under government control.

Article 12 of Indian Constitution Features

The Article 12 of Indian Constitution has been evolved with time through various interpretations and judgements as highlighted below:

• Inclusive Nature of Definition: The use of the word “includes” shows that the definition is not exhaustive. Courts have expanded its scope over time to include various bodies acting as instrumentalities of the State.
• Interpretation of “Other Authorities”: Initially interpreted narrowly, it now includes bodies performing public duties even if not strictly governmental. This liberal interpretation ensures broader protection of Fundamental Rights.
• Instrumentality of State Doctrine: This doctrine states that agencies through which the government functions are also considered State. Corporations and institutions performing public functions fall under Article 12.
• R.D. Shetty Five Point Test: A body is considered State if it meets conditions like Government Funding, Deep Control, Public Function, Monopoly Status or Origin from a Government Department. This test is illustrative, not conclusive.
• Local Authority Test (R.C. Jain Case): A body qualifies as a local authority if it has legal identity, defined area, financial powers, autonomy and performs functions similar to municipalities or public bodies.
• Doctrine of Ejusdem Generis: Earlier courts applied this principle to restrict “other authorities,” but later judgments rejected it, stating that no common category exists among listed bodies, allowing broader interpretation.
• Doctrine of Instrumentality: Courts have consistently held that bodies acting as agencies of the government fall within Article 12, ensuring accountability of modern governance structures.

‹ ›

Article 12 of Indian Constitution Applicability

Article 12 of Indian Constitution determines the scope of Fundamental Rights enforcement by identifying authorities against whom such rights can be claimed.

• Control of Government: A body need not be completely controlled by the government. Even partial or indirect control, along with financial assistance, may bring it within the definition of State.
• Statutory and Non Statutory Bodies: Both types of bodies can be considered State if they receive government support and perform public functions. Mere statutory status alone is not sufficient.
• Judiciary Position: Judiciary is not explicitly mentioned in Article 12. When courts perform administrative tasks like conducting exams or appointments, they may be treated as State. However, judicial decisions cannot be challenged as violation of Fundamental Rights.
• International Bodies: International organizations such as the United Nations are not considered State. Courts have clarified that such bodies are not under Indian constitutional jurisdiction.
• Writ Jurisdiction under Article 226: Even if a body is not State under Article 12, courts may still issue Writs if the body performs public duties or violates legal provisions outside Part III of the Constitution of India.

Article 12 of Indian Constitution Case Laws

Judicial interpretation has played a major role in expanding the scope of Article 12 of Indian Constitution and clarifying its application.

• University of Madras v. Shanta Bai (1950): The court applied the principle of ejusdem generis, limiting “other authorities” to those performing governmental functions. This restrictive interpretation was later rejected.
• Ujjammabai v. State of UP (1961): The Supreme Court rejected the restrictive approach and held that ejusdem generis cannot be applied as Article 12 bodies do not share a common category.
• Rajasthan Electricity Board v. Mohan Lal (1967): The Court held that statutory bodies performing public functions fall under “other authorities,” even if engaged in commercial activities.
• R.D. Shetty v. Airport Authority of India (1979): The Court introduced a five point test to identify whether a body is an instrumentality or agency of the State.
• Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagatram (1975): The Court held that statutory corporations like LIC and ONGC are State as they function under government control and perform public duties.
• Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib (1980): The Court emphasized that the nature of functions and government control are key factors in determining State status, not the form of the entity.
• Zee Telefilms v. Union of India (2005): The Court held that BCCI is not a State as it lacks deep government control, though it performs public functions.
• Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra (2002): The Supreme Court ruled that judiciary is not State when performing judicial functions and such decisions cannot violate Fundamental Rights.
• Union of India v. R.C. Jain (1981): The Court laid down criteria to determine local authorities, including legal status, autonomy and public function.
• Sanjaya Bahel v. Union of India (2019): The Delhi High Court clarified that international organizations like the United Nations are not State under Article 12 and cannot be challenged under constitutional remedies.