Article 12: Definition of the state in accordance with the Indian structure

Tap to follow:

This article provides an insight into Article 12 of the Indian Constitution, which defines the term “state”.

Article 12 of the Indian Constitution defines the state, which includes the government and parliament of India, as well as the government and legislation of any state and any local or other authorities in the territory of India or under the control of the Indian government.

The fundamental rights granted to citizens serve as a guarantee, and the state must not violate these fundamental rights. If the state violates citizens’ FRs, that person can sue the state.

Now the question arises here is What is a state?

And How can citizens sue the state?

Article 12 thus defines the state and only applies to parts 3 and 4 of the constitution. Article 12 defines 4 authorities as part of the state, which are:

  1. Government and Parliament of India,
  2. Government and state legislators,
  3. Local community,
  4. And other authorities.

We will understand the meaning of the term “The State”, not as usually understood, but as generally defined in Art. 12, in that the meaning of “State” according to Art. 12 is expanded to include various cases.

  • In case of University of Madras v. Shantha Bai, AIR 1954 Mad. 67This case focuses on sovereign functions, the meaning of the state being understood to include only entities that exercise governmental or sovereign functions. The judges said that the rule of ejusdem generis applies to Article 12. This means that these authorities fall under the term “other authorities exercising governmental or sovereign functions”.
  • In case of Rajasthan State Electricity Board, Jaipur v. Mohan Lal, AIR 1967 SC 1857the principle was rejected by Ejusdem generis; This case focused on the structure of Article 12 and the verdict read as follows: “Any constitutional or statutory authority to which authority has been conferred by law. It is by no means essential that some of the powers conferred be intended for the pursuit of commercial activities. “
  • In case of Sukhdev v. Bhagatram, AIR 1975 SC 1331 (Mathew, J: Removing the Veil from the Structure-Centered Approach to Article 12), saying that Article 12 includes: a) Receiving financial assistance from the state along with an unusual level of control over the management and policies of the institution from the institution State (Government) b) The operations performed by the entity are “important public functions”. This is where government support or control becomes an irrelevant consideration.
  • In case of RD Shetty versus IAAI, AIR 1979 SC 1628 The court ran a series of tests that were not exhaustive and read as follows:

a) Total share capital of the state body

b) Deep and ubiquitous condition control

c) monopoly status granted or recognized by the government

d) Performs functions of public importance relating to government functions, etc.

  • Pradeep Kumar Biswas v Indian Institute of Chemical Biology, (2002) 5 SCC 111 there was a seven-judge bank that defined a state as a body that had deep and ubiquitous state control over its functions, finances and administration; Mere official control of the government over the body is not enough.
  • In a very famous case of Zee Telefilms Ltd v Union of India, AIR 2005 SC 2677, The question arose as to whether the BCCI would fall into the state category under Article 12. The judgment stated that the BCCI is not a state if it is found that the requirements of the Biswas judgment are not met. STILL, if a private body performs public functions (public duty), even if it is not state-owned, the injured person has a legal remedy under ordinary law and also under Article 226.
  • In another case, Janet Jayepaul v SRM University, AIR 2016 SC 73;; The university fulfills “important public functions”, hence the state; Therefore the responsibility for the written responsibility and thus for the university was considered under the definition of the state.

When an entity is considered within the meaning of the definition of State under Article 12 of the Constitution, it has the following functions:

  1. It will be bound by the limitations of Part III of the Constitution (although some provisions are not specific to the state, e.g. Article 15 (2), Article 17, Article 18 (2), etc.).
  2. It will be possible to write the competence of SC and HC according to Art. 32 and 226 respectively
  3. And it will also have a margin of maneuver within the provision of Part III to limit the rights appropriately, e.g. B. Art. 19 Paragraphs 2 to 6.

Whether the judiciary falls under the meaning of the state under Article 12?

This question arises because Art. 12 obviously excludes the judiciary from the state. It explicitly mentions the executive and legislative bodies and omits the judiciary, which generally falls under the ordinary meaning of the state.

Through the falls of Naresh Sridhar Mirajkar v. Maharashtra state, AR Antulay versus RS Nayak and Riju Prasad Sharma versus State of Assam, It was noted that the judiciary, while working on the judiciary, does not fall within the meaning of the state under Article 12.

Wrong court decisions are therefore not suitable for written jurisdiction. However, they can be challenged by filing an appeal, review, or revision. However, the judiciary falls under the meaning of the state under Article 12, while it operates on its administrative and regulatory side. Therefore, every violation of Part III can be challenged by an administrative decision or against regulations of the judiciary by means of a petition according to Art. 32 or 226.

Comments are closed.