State under Article 12 & Judiciary as State under Article 12

State under Article 12 & Judiciary as State under Article 12

Explains the constitutional definition of "State" under Article 12, scope of government bodies and instrumentalities, tests for other authorities, and when judicial actions are considered state acts.

Table of Contents

1 Introduction to State under Article 122 Definition of "State"3 Expansive Interpretation4 Instrumentalities of the State5 Tests for "Other Authority"6 Statutory Corporations7 Judiciary as State under Article 128 Key Judicial Cases9 Challenges to Judicial Decisions10 Remedies11 Conclusion

Introduction to State under Article 12

Article 12 of the Indian Constitution defines "The State" for Fundamental Rights enforcement. This definition is foundational for interpreting constitutional protections.

Definition of "State"

  • 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 Government of India control

Expansive Interpretation

  • Definition is not exhaustive; courts expand "state" through judicial interpretation.
  • Includes government instrumentalities and authorities carrying out state functions.

Instrumentalities of the State

  • Entities like ONGC, IFC, LIC are state under Article 12 due to statutory powers and government control.
  • Theory of instrumentality (Article 298): organizations carrying out governmental duties as "state".

Tests for "Other Authority"

  1. Entire share capital owned/managed by state
  2. Enjoys monopoly status
  3. Government department transferred to corporation
  4. Functional character is governmental
  5. Deep/pervasive state control

(R.D. Shetty v. IAAI, 1979)

Statutory Corporations

  • Sukdev Singh v. Bhagat Ram (1975): Statutory corporations are "state"

Judiciary as State under Article 12

  • Judicial functions: courts not "state" when resolving disputes—judicial decisions rarely violate fundamental rights.
  • Non-judicial/administrative/quasi-judicial acts: can be "state" for constitutional remedy.

Key Judicial Cases

  • Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra (1967): Judicial decisions do not violate fundamental rights.
  • Prem Chand Garg v. Excise Commissioner: Petition under Article 32 is fundamental right, cannot be restricted.

Challenges to Judicial Decisions

  • Certiorari writ: issued against bodies acting judicially/quasi-judicially
  • Judicial conduct must not violate rights under Article 15(2)(b), Article 17

Remedies

  • Final decisions: Appeals/reviews before higher courts, not writs for fundamental rights violation.

Conclusion

"State" under Article 12 is broad but not unlimited. Judicial acts are mostly excluded unless they have an administrative/quasi-judicial character. Understanding Article 12 is crucial for enforcing fundamental rights.