Constitution of India

Article 12: Definition — In this Part, unless the context otherwise requires, 'the State'

Part III — Fundamental Rights

Article 12 (no sub-clauses)

WHAT IT SAYS: In this Part, unless the context otherwise requires, 'the State' includes: 1. The Government and Parliament of India 2. The Government and the Legislature of each of the States 3. All local authorities within the territory of India 4. All other authorities within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India WHAT IT MEANS: 1. This is a DEFINITIONAL article — it does not itself confer or deny any right. 2. It defines 'State' for the purpose of Part III (Fundamental Rights) and, by Article 36, also Part IV (DPSPs). 3. Fundamental rights are primarily enforceable AGAINST the 'State' as defined here. 4. The word 'includes' makes the definition INCLUSIVE, not exhaustive — courts can expand its scope. 5. Four components: (a) Union Executive + Legislature, (b) State Executive + Legislature, (c) Local authorities, (d) Other authorities. KEY DOCTRINES: 1. Doctrine of Instrumentality / Agency — bodies functioning as agencies of government are 'State' even if not named. 2. Deep and Pervasive Control Test — financial, functional, administrative domination by government brings a body within Article 12. 3. Ejusdem Generis — initially applied to restrict 'other authorities'; later rejected by SC as there is no common genus among listed bodies.

Constitutional Inspiration

SOURCE(S): 1. US Constitution — 14th Amendment, Section 1 Original provision: 'No State shall... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.' What India kept: The concept that fundamental rights operate as restrictions on 'State' action, not private action (vertical application). 2. Government of India Act, 1935 Original provision: Section 299 — definition of 'State' for purposes of property and contract. What India kept: The basic structure of defining governmental entities for rights enforcement. INDIA'S SPECIFIC ADAPTATIONS: 1. Inclusive definition using 'includes' — Why: Framers anticipated growth of state activity in a welfare state and wanted courts to expand coverage. 2. 'Other authorities' — a deliberately broad residuary category — Why: India's complex federal structure with hundreds of statutory bodies needed a catch-all term. 3. 'Local authorities' expressly included — Why: Colonial legacy of local bodies (municipalities, panchayats) exercising coercive power over citizens required accountability. 4. No express mention of judiciary — Why: Framers wished to keep judicial independence intact while allowing case-by-case determination.

Constituent Assembly Debate

DEBATED ON: 25 November 1948 (CAD Volume VII) DRAFT ARTICLE NUMBER: Draft Article 7 KEY SPEAKERS: 1. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar (Chairman, Drafting Committee) — Explained that fundamental rights must bind every authority with power to make laws or exercise discretion, from Central Government down to village panchayats. 2. Members raised concerns — Some felt the wording of 'other authorities' was too vague and moved amendments seeking greater specificity. MAJOR DISAGREEMENTS: 1. Vagueness of 'other authorities' — Some members wanted the term defined more precisely; Ambedkar defended the broad language as necessary. 2. Scope of 'State' — Whether it should cover only sovereign/governmental bodies or also quasi-governmental entities. FINAL OUTCOME: The Assembly adopted Draft Article 7 with only one minor amendment on 25 November 1948; the broad inclusive definition was retained. AMBEDKAR'S KEY QUOTE: 'The object of the fundamental rights is two-fold. First, every citizen must be in a position to claim those rights. Secondly, they must be binding upon every authority.'

Landmark Judgments

LANDMARK JUDGMENTS: 1. University of Madras v. Shanta Bai (1954) — Madras HC applied ejusdem generis, holding 'other authorities' means only those performing governmental/sovereign functions. [NARROW view — later overruled] 2. Ujjammabai v. State of UP (1962) — SC rejected ejusdem generis, holding bodies in Article 12 share no common genus; 'other authorities' must be read broadly. 3. Rajasthan Electricity Board v. Mohan Lal (1967) — SC held 'other authorities' includes all constitutional or statutory authorities, even those performing commercial activities. 4. Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagatram (1975) — LIC, ONGC, IFC held to be 'State'; statutory corporations making binding regulations are 'other authorities'. [4:1 majority] 5. R.D. Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India (1979) — Justice P.N. Bhagwati laid down the FIVE-POINT TEST to determine if a body is an instrumentality of the State. 6. Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib (1981) — SC laid down a SIX-FACTOR TEST; a registered society running an engineering college held to be 'State' due to deep and pervasive government control. 7. Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology (2002) — 7-Judge Bench (5:2) overruled Sabhajit Tewary; held CSIR is 'State' under Article 12 applying the deep and pervasive control test. 8. Zee Telefilms v. Union of India (2005) — BCCI held NOT to be 'State' under Article 12 despite monopoly over cricket, as it lacked sufficient government control. 9. Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra (2002) — SC held that judiciary is NOT 'State' when exercising judicial functions; judicial decisions cannot violate fundamental rights. 10. Kaushal Kishor v. State of UP (2023) — Constitutional Bench expanded scope of Articles 19 and 21 against non-state actors, partially altering the strict vertical application framework of Article 12. NOTABLE DISSENTS: 1. Justice Alagiriswamy in Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagatram (1975) — Dissented from the majority; argued statutory corporations should not automatically be treated as 'State'. 2. Justice R.C. Lahoti & Justice Doraiswamy Raju in Pradeep Kumar Biswas (2002) — Dissented; held CSIR was correctly found not to be 'State' in Sabhajit Tewary and should not be overruled. SCHOLARS & JURISTS: 1. H.M. Seervai — Argued judiciary should be considered 'State' under Article 12, relying on Articles 145 and 146 (rule-making and administrative powers of courts). 2. V.N. Shukla — Supported the view that judiciary qualifies as 'State' when performing non-judicial/administrative functions. 3. Justice P.N. Bhagwati — Architect of the instrumentality doctrine; his opinions in R.D. Shetty and Ajay Hasia remain the foundation of Article 12 jurisprudence.