hgggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggg

1. Article 12
• Article: 12
• Meaning
• Definition of State
• Concept of Other Authorities
• leading case laws

2. Definition:
• What/Why is the requirement of definition of state
• State only for the purpose of Pat III, and is different from State mentioned in other articles.
• 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.
• Fundamental Rights can be claimed against the state but not against the individuals
• State:
• 1. The Government and Parliament of India
• 2. The Government and Legislature of a State
• 3. All local authorities, local self governing bodies (example (S.31(3)) of General clauses
act, who can make their own bylaws, municipalities, panchayats, District boards etc.
• ‘local authority’ shall mean a municipal committee, district board, body of port
commissioners or other authority legally entitled to, or entrusted by the Government with,
the control or management of a municipal or local fund.
• 4. Other authorities within territory of India under the control of Central Government.

3. Other authorities
• Literally ‘authority’ means a person or body exercising power or having a
legal right to command and be obeyed. An ‘Authority’ is a group of persons
with official responsibility for a particular area of activity and having a moral
or legal right or ability to control others.
• Idea of social welfare was enforced by the Government by several means.
• There is an ambiguity while dealing with the concept of “other authorities”.
• Body created by any Law, the nature of these bodies could be anything.
• Set up under special statute

4. Summary/Crux/Analysis
• Once if it is settled that an entity is a “other authority” under Article
12, are subject to the following:
• The actions and decisions of the above mentioned identity can be
challenged with reference to Fundamental Rights.
• Subjected to Administrative Law
• Subjected to Writ jurisdiction under Art.226 & 32

5. Landmark Judgments
• Supreme Court has developed the concept of “instrumentality”
• “Instrumentality”: which work like a State.
• University of Madras v. Santa Bai AIR 1954 Mad.67: concept of ejusdem generis (of the
same kind) (governmental or sovereign function)
• Ujjammbai v. State of U.P. AIR 1962 SC 1621: rejected the above mechanism
• Rajasthan Electricity Board v. Mohan Lal AIR 1967 SC 1857: Supreme Court held that
“other authorities” included those authorities which had been created by the Constitution or
under any statute and, on whom powers had been conferred upon by law
• Sukdev Singh v Bhagat Ram AIR 1975 SC 1331: the court discussed the status of statutory
corporations like ONGC, IFC and LIC. The court held that all of these corporations were
“the State” under Article 12 of the Constitution because these corporations were created by
statutes, had the statutory power to make binding rules and regulations, and were subject to
pervasive government control.
• Ramanna D. Shetty v. International Airport Authority AIR 1979 SC 1628 held that
International Airport Authority is a “state” as it is formed by the statute.
• “ instrumentality” or “agency” of the government would be regarded as “authority” or “state”

6. • R.D.Shetty v International Airport Authority 1979 SCR (3)1014: the
Court laid down five tests to be considered “other authority”, which are as
follows:
• Entire share capital is owned or managed by State.
• Enjoys monopoly status.
• Department of Government is transferred to Corporation
• Functional character, governmental in essence.
• Deep and pervasive State control.
• Object of Authority

7. • Ajay Hasia v Khalid Mujib AIR 1981 SC 487: not formed under statute but
registered under society registration act, a regional engineering college was under
the government’s financial and administrative control of the government. The court
held that the college was an “authority” for the purposes of Article 12. The court
laid down the following tests to determine whether a body is an instrumentality
of the government or not:
• If the entire share capital of the corporation is held by the government
• Where the financial assistance of the state is so much as to meet almost entire
expenditure of the corporation.
• Whether the corporation enjoys monopoly status, which is state conferred or state
protected.
• Existence of deep and pervasive state control.
• If the functions of the corporation are of public importance.
• If a department of government is transferred to corporation.
• M.C. Mehta v Sri Ram Fertilizers Ltd., 1987 SCR 819: the court stressed that
the ambit of Article 12 should be enlarged in order to bring private companies under
the strict scrutiny of fundamental rights

8. Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology (2002):
“Ultimate Test”, if functionally, financially and administratively under the
deep and pervasive control of the Government.
Zee Telefilms Ltd. v. Union of India (2005) 4 SCC 649:
Board of Cricket Control of India not a State
R.S.Madireddy & Ors v. Union of India & Ors. SLP (C) Bo. 23441-
23444/2022: Air India due to privatization not a “State” (16 January 2023)
General considerations:
Assistance from State; or
State controlled: complete or partial