State: Definition and Judicial Interpretation [Part-III: Article 12]

In constitutional law, the term “State” is of foundational importance because Fundamental Rights under Part III are enforceable only against the State or its instrumentalities, and not against purely private individuals (except where horizontality is recognised).

The Constitution does not define “State” in a general sense, but provides a specific definition for the purpose of Part III under Article 12.

Article 12 of the Constitution of India – Meaning of “State” #

Article 12 provides:

“In this Part, unless the context otherwise requires, the State includes the Government and Parliament of India and the Government and the Legislature of each of the States and all local or other authorities within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India.”

Thus, Article 12 expressly includes:

1. Government and Parliament of India

2. Government and Legislature of States

3. Local authorities

4. Other authorities within India or under the control of the Government of India

Use and Purpose of Article 12 #

The purpose of Article 12 is not to define State exhaustively, but to identify bodies against whom Fundamental Rights can be enforced under Articles 32 and 226.

Example #

If a body qualifies as “State” under Article 12:

• Its actions can be challenged for violation of Articles 14, 19, 21, etc.

• Writs such as mandamus, certiorari, and prohibition can be issued against it.

Inclusive Nature of the Definition under Article 12 #

The definition of State under Article 12 is inclusive, not exhaustive.
The use of the word “includes” indicates that:

• The definition is capable of expansion

• New forms of authorities may be brought within Article 12 through judicial interpretation

This expansion has mainly occurred through the interpretation of the expression “other authorities”.

“Other Authorities” – Judicial Expansion through Case Law #

The expression “other authorities” is not defined in the Constitution. Its scope has therefore been progressively widened by the Supreme Court to include various statutory and non-statutory bodies.

The development can be traced through the following landmark judgments, discussed chronologically.

Rajasthan Electricity Board v. Mohan Lal (1967) #

Facts:
The Rajasthan Electricity Board, a statutory body created under the Electricity (Supply) Act, was challenged for violating Fundamental Rights.

Issue:
Whether a statutory corporation like the Electricity Board is “State” under Article 12.

Held:
The Supreme Court held that statutory authorities created by law and vested with powers to affect legal rights are “other authorities” under Article 12.

Principle:
The term “other authorities” includes bodies created by statute having governmental or public duties.

Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagat Ram (1975) #

Facts:
Employees of ONGC, LIC, and IFC challenged service regulations on the ground of violation of Fundamental Rights.

Issue:
Whether statutory corporations like ONGC, LIC, and IFC are “State”.

Held:
By majority, the Court held that these corporations are State because:

• They are created by statute

• They perform public functions

• They are subject to pervasive governmental control

Significance:
This case shifted the focus from form to functional character of the body.

R. D. Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India (1979) #

Facts:
The International Airport Authority of India rejected a tender arbitrarily, and the action was challenged under Article 14.

Issue:
Whether a statutory authority engaged in commercial activity is “State”.

Held:
The Court held that the Authority is “State” and emphasized that even commercial activities must conform to Article 14.

Contribution:
Justice P. N. Bhagwati laid down the foundation for identifying “State” based on governmental control and public character, paving the way for a structured test.

Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi (1981) #

Facts:
A society registered under the Societies Registration Act (running a regional engineering college) was challenged for arbitrary admission procedures.

Issue:
Whether a non-statutory body can be “State”.

Held:
The Supreme Court held that even a society can be State if it is an instrumentality or agency of the Government.

Six-Point Test laid down by Justice P. N. Bhagwati #

A body may be considered “State” if:

1. Entire or substantial share capital is held by the Government

2. Financial assistance from the State is so extensive that it meets almost entire expenditure

3. The body enjoys monopoly status conferred or protected by the State

4. There is deep and pervasive State control

5. The functions performed are of public importance and closely related to governmental functions

6. A government department has been transferred to the body

Nature of the Test:
These are indicative, not conclusive tests, and must be applied cumulatively.

R. S. Nayak v. A. R. Antulay (1984) #

Facts:
A trust managing a hospital was challenged for violating constitutional obligations.

Issue:
Whether a public trust can be treated as “State”.

Held:
The Court held that a body which is not under deep and pervasive State control and does not perform sovereign or public functions cannot be treated as State.

Importance:
This case acted as a limiting principle, ensuring that Article 12 is not stretched indiscriminately.

Zee Telefilms Ltd. v. Union of India (2005) #

Facts:
The Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) was challenged as “State” under Article 12.

Issue:
Whether BCCI is “State”.

Held:
By majority, the Court held that BCCI is not State, because:

• It is not created by statute

• Government control is regulatory, not pervasive

• Financial and administrative autonomy exists

Clarification:
However, the Court observed that BCCI performs public functions, and writs under Article 226 may still lie.

Conclusion #

Article 12 provides an inclusive and flexible definition of State, intended to ensure effective enforcement of Fundamental Rights. Through judicial interpretation, especially of the phrase “other authorities”, the Supreme Court has expanded the scope of State to include:

• Statutory corporations

• Government-controlled bodies

• Instrumentalities and agencies of the State

At the same time, the Court has exercised judicial restraint to prevent over-expansion, as seen in cases like R. S. Nayak and Zee Telefilms.

Thus, the concept of “State” under Article 12 represents a dynamic balance between constitutional accountability and institutional autonomy, shaped primarily through judicial precedents.