The majority of the Fundamental Rights granted to citizens are asserted against the State and its agencies rather than against private entities. Hence, it becomes pertinent to understand whether which bodies fall under the definition of a state. Article 12 of the Indian Constitution defines the term “state” to provide clarity in this regard. 

Article 12 of the Indian Constitution Definition of State

Article 12 of the Indian Constitution states that, unless the context otherwise requires, “the State” includes:

• Government and Parliament of India i.e. the Executive and Legislature of the Union.
• Government and Legislature of each State i.e. the Executive and Legislature of the various States of India.
• All the local authorities such as municipalities, panchayats, district boards, port and improvement trusts, etc.
• All other authorities that are present in Indian territory or are operating under the supervision of the Government of India i.e. statutory or non-statutory authorities like LIC, ONGC, SAIL, etc.

Here, it should be understood that the framers of our Constitution used the word ‘the State’ in a much wider sense than what was ordinarily understood. Through various judicial interpretations, the court has widened the scope of the Article way beyond what even the framers of Article 12 had intended. Actions of all the agencies, which have been mentioned in the definition of State, can be challenged in the courts if they violate Fundamental Rights. The definition of state in Article 12 is only for the purpose of application of the provisions contained in Part III.

Why is defining State important? 

Ordinary laws are sufficient enough to protect against infringement of rights of individuals by private persons. But as the state is granted unlimited powers and authority, individuals need constitutional protection from the acts of the state itself. For providing this protection, a clear definition of state needs to be given. 

Though Article 12 gives a clear definition of the state, controversies arise due to the term ‘’other authorities’’ under article 12. Inclusion of an organisation in the definition of state would make it amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 32.

Other Authorities

In Article 12 of the Indian Constitution, the term ‘other authorities’ has been mentioned. Nonetheless, we do not encounter any definition for the term “other authorities” in the Constitution or in any other law of India. Consequently, understanding it has presented considerable challenges, and the judicial interpretation has evolved significantly over the years.. Following are some of the case laws related to the term ‘other authorities’ under article 12.

Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib, 1981 

• Importance: In this case, the Court established a criterion to assess if an individual, corporation, or society functioned as an agency of the government, and whether it could be regarded as a State in the context of Article 12 of the Indian Constitution.. 
• Implication: If a body comes under the definition of the state under Article 12, a writ can lie against them for violating the fundamental rights. 
• The judgement gave a six-factor test to determine whether a body will be considered under the definition of the state or not: 

1. Share capital: The share capital of the corporation may be owned by the Government.
2. Financial assistance: Whether the financial assistance of the State meets almost the entire expenditure of the corporation.
3. Monopoly status: Whether the corporation possesses a monopoly status that is granted or safeguarded by the state.
4. State control: The extent to which there is extensive and widespread government oversight.
5. Functions of the body: The significance of the corporation’s functions to the public and their strong connection to governmental duties..
6. Department: Regardless of whether a government department has been moved to a corporation.

Zee Telefilms v. The Union of India 2005

• Importance: The debate was whether BCCI should be included under the ambit of Article 12 of the Indian Constitution and shall be termed as the ‘State.’ The ‘’six factor test’’ was used to determine the status of the BCCI. The supreme court held that the BCCI cannot be called a State under Article 12 of the Constitution. 
• Judgement: The supreme court held that the BCCI cannot be called a State under Art. 12 by applying the six factor test. 

• Share capital: BCCI was not formed as part of the share capital held by the Government. 

• Financial assistance: No practical financial assistance was given to the BCCI by the Government.

• Monopoly status: Though the BCCI enjoyed a monopoly status in the field of cricket, the control was only regulatory in nature.

• Functions of the body: The major functions of the Board were not public functions nor were they closely related to governmental functions.

• Department: Board was not created by the transfer of a Government owned Corporation and was an autonomous body.

• Conclusion: As the body was not created by a statute, not dominated by the government either financially, functionally or administratively it was held that BCCI would not come under the definition of the state. 
• Aftermath: In its 275th report titled “Legal Framework: BCCI vs Right to Information Act, 2005,” the Law Commission of India had recommended that BCCI be brought under RTI. In October 2018, Central Information Commission ruled that BCCI is covered under the RTI Act and answerable to the people of the country under its mechanism as a Public Authority.

Judiciary as a ‘State’ under Article 12?

Judiciary and state: Article 12 of the Constitution does not specifically define ‘judiciary’. Thus, to answer whether Judiciary comes under the definition of the state we have to look at the functions of the Judiciary. 

Functions performed by Judiciary:  The functions of the Judiciary can be divided into judicial and non-judicial functions. 

• Non-Judicial functions: When the courts perform their non-judicial functions, they fall within the definition of the ‘State’. Thus, an administrative decision or a rule made by the judiciary for its efficient and effective functioning can be challenged as being violative of fundamental rights.
• Judicial function: When the courts perform the judicial functions, they will not fall within the scope of the ‘State’. Thus, the judicial decision of a court cannot be challenged as being violative of fundamental rights. 

Important Judgments Related to the Article 12 of the Indian Constitution

Rupak Ashok Hura case

On 10th April, 2002, the five-judges bench of the Supreme court held that it is a settled position that no judicial order passed by a superior court in its judicial proceedings can be said to violate any of the Fundamental rights given under Part III of the constitution. The Supreme Court also held that the superior court of Justice does not fall under the ambit of State or ‘other authorities’ under Article 12 of the constitution.

Riju Prasad Sarmah vs State of Assam, 2015

In the case, the petitioner had contended that the state includes all three organs of the state including the Judiciary. The court held that when the court is acting in its Judicial capacity, it cannot be regarded as a State. However, writ jurisdiction applies to administrative actions of the judiciary.