Article 12 and 13 – State

Synopsis: 

1. State under Article 12
2. Importance of Article 12 
3. Local authorities
4. Guidelines from SC to decide State
5. Is the Judiciary a State
6. Conclusion

1. State under Article 12
   
   Article 12 of the Indian Constitution delineates the definition of the term “State” for constitutional purposes. It specifies that “State” encompasses the following entities:
   1.  The government and Parliament of India
   2. The government and Legislature of each individual state within India
   3. All local or other authorities operating within the territory of India or under the jurisdiction of the Indian government
      
      Consequently, the definition of “State” as articulated in Article 12 extends beyond merely the governmental and legislative institutions to include various entities that wield power and authority within India’s territory or under the Indian government’s control. This comprehensive definition is crucial for understanding the extent of fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution, which can be enforced against the State.
      
      
2. Importance of Article 12
   
   Article 12 of the Indian Constitution delineates the meaning of the term “State” as it appears in various constitutional provisions. According to this article, the term “State” encompasses the Government and Parliament of India, the government and Legislature of each State, as well as all local and other authorities operating within the territory of India or under the jurisdiction of the Indian Government.
   
   The significance of Article 12 is underscored by its role in elucidating the breadth of the term “State,” which is referenced in several fundamental rights provisions, including Articles 14, 15, and 21. These articles ensure equality before the law, prohibit discrimination on multiple grounds, and safeguard the right to life and personal liberty.
   
   By incorporating all local and other authorities within the definition of “State” in Article 12, the Constitution mandates that these entities adhere to the fundamental rights enshrined within it. Consequently, any infringement of these rights by such authorities is subject to judicial review.
   
   
3. Local authorities
   
   This encompasses all entities and organizations that are created by or operate under the Constitution, including municipal corporations, panchayats, zilla parishads, and various other local self-governing institutions. Additionally, it incorporates any other authority established by the Indian government, such as public sector enterprises and autonomous organizations.
   
   In the case of Mohammed Yasin v. Town Area Committee, the Supreme Court of India determined that the bye-laws of a Municipal Committee, which imposed a specific fee on wholesale dealers, constituted an order from a State authority that infringed upon Article 19(1)(g) of the Indian Constitution. The bye-laws effectively halted the wholesale dealer’s operations, rendering them unconstitutional.
   
   Ejusdem Generis is an interpretative principle that posits when a specific category of terms is succeeded by a general term, the latter is not to be understood in an unrestricted manner but rather confined to the meaning of the preceding specific terms. Consequently, the expression “and other authorities” in Article 12 should be interpreted in conjunction with the earlier mentioned entities, such as local authorities, as well as state and central governments.
   
   Nonetheless, the Supreme Court has established an exception to this interpretative principle concerning Article 12, asserting that the term “other authorities” should not be limited to local authorities and state or union governments, as determined in the case of Ujjain Bai v. State of U.P.
   
   
4. Guidelines from SC to decide State
   
   In the case of Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India (IAAI), the Supreme Court established criteria to ascertain whether an entity qualifies as an “other authority” under Article 12 of the Indian Constitution. The criteria are outlined as follows:
   1. Statutory existence: The entity must be established by a statute that delineates its powers and responsibilities.
   2. Public function: The entity should be engaged in performing a public function or providing an essential public utility.
   3. Financial independence: The entity must possess financial autonomy, or its financial operations must be closely linked to the government.
   4. Government oversight: The entity must be subject to considerable governmental control.
      
      The court determined that an entity meeting all or most of these criteria may be classified as an “other authority” under Article 12. Additionally, it was noted that an entity not established by statute could still be recognized as an “other authority” if it fulfills the other specified conditions.
      
      Moreover, the court affirmed that entities classified as “other authorities” under Article 12 fall within the writ jurisdiction of both the High Courts and the Supreme Court. Consequently, their actions may be contested in court if they infringe upon fundamental rights or are deemed illegal or arbitrary.
      
5. Is the Judiciary a State
   
   Article 12 of the Indian Constitution delineates the term “State” to encompass the government and Parliament of India, the government and Legislature of each state, as well as all local or other authorities operating within the territory of India or under the jurisdiction of the Government of India. Notably, the Judiciary, which constitutes one of the three fundamental pillars of Indian democracy, is not explicitly categorized as an “other authority” within the confines of Article 12. Nevertheless, the Judiciary wields the authority of the State to interpret the Constitution and safeguard the fundamental rights of individuals. The Supreme Court of India has articulated in various rulings that the Judiciary can be regarded as part of the State in the context of enforcing constitutional rights.
   
   For example, in the landmark case of Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra (1967), the Supreme Court determined that while the Judiciary does not qualify as an “other authority” under Article 12, it may, under specific circumstances, fall within the writ jurisdiction of both the High Court and the Supreme Court. Furthermore, the court affirmed that the Judiciary is bound by the Constitution, and the power of judicial review is an intrinsic aspect of the Judiciary, ensuring that constitutional protections are upheld.
   
   
6. Conclusion
   
   Article 12 of the Indian Constitution delineates the concept of “State,” encompassing the government, Parliament, and all local or other authorities operating within the territory of India or under the jurisdiction of the Government of India. The phrase “other authorities” has been expansively interpreted by the Supreme Court to encompass any organization that engages in public functions or wields powers akin to those of the state. The guidelines established in the Ramana Dayaram Shetty case serve as a framework for assessing whether an entity qualifies as a “State” or an “other authority” as defined in Article 12. Although the Judiciary is not explicitly categorized as an “other authority” within Article 12, it is integral to the constitutional architecture of India, fulfilling a crucial role in maintaining the rule of law and safeguarding fundamental rights. The Supreme Court has affirmed that the Judiciary is bound by the Constitution and must operate in alignment with its foundational principles, which include the separation of powers and the independence of the judiciary.