Article 12 under the Indian Constitution

According to Article 12 of the Constitution of India, the term ‘State’ denotes

the union and state governments, the Parliament and state legislatures, and
all local or other authorities within the territory of India or under the control
of the Indian government. Article 12 defines State by consisting of the
following parts of the Constitution-

• The Government and the Parliament of India

• The Government and the Legislature of each State.

• Local Authorities and Other Authorities.

And the essential bodies embodied under Article 12-

• The President of India and Governors of states with executive powers

• Any department of the government like the Income Tax Department.

• Any institution controlled by the government like the International Institute

for Population Sciences

• LIC and ONGC which perform tasks similar to governmental or sovereign

functions.

• Municipalities, Panchayats, and other similar local authorities with the

power to make and enforce rules, regulations, and laws.

• Any other organization which exercises sovereign functions.

• Article 12 does not clear about the definition of Jurisdiction. However, the
school of thought is that since the judiciary has the power to make and
enforce laws, it should be considered to be a State. However, whereas a false
judgment may cause a violation of the fundamental rights of a citizen,
obstructive decisions of the Courts are subjected to the tests of Article 14 of
the Constitution.

Thus, the simple regulatory power of the government over any statutory or
non-statutory body is not enough for it to be deemed as a State. The
concerned administrative body has to be financially, functionally and
administratively and pervasively controlled by the government.
Essential Part of the Indian Constitution
Being a pivotal part of the Constitution of India, it has chastity along with
some black marks.

Some members of the Assembly were concerned that the wording of the
Article was too vague and some moved amendments. They particularly had
trouble with the term ‘other authorities’ which would in effect bring in almost
every government agency or officer under the sphere of ‘State’. One member
had a complaint regarding while it was fine for fundamental rights to be
binding on institutions like district boards and municipalities, to refer to these
institutions as the ‘State’ was inappropriate.

In the end, it got clarified that ‘authorities’ would refer persons that had ‘the
power to form laws or the power to have discretion vested in it’. Also, in
response to members who were against of the use of the term ‘State’, it was
argued that it would be burdened to list out the various institutions upon
whom fundamental rights were binding; so the term ‘State’ – with its
comprehensiveness and economy of words – was useful to adopt throughout
the fundamental rights section and therefore the Constitution.

The Assembly adopted the Article with just one amendment: ‘or under the
government of India’ was added to the end of the Article 12 to account for
those territories which were not part of India but nonetheless under the
control of the Indian government.

Cases related to Article 12

The Constitution of India has defined the word ‘State’ under Article 12, for
the purpose of Part-iii and Part-iv. In the case of, ‘State of West Bengal vs
Subodh Gopal Bose (1954 AIR 92)’ the SC observed that the object of Part-iii
is to provide protection to the rights and freedoms guaranteed under this
Party by the invasion of ‘State’.

The maximum of cases of this Article is related to the Authorities embodied

under this Article 12 i.e Local Authorities, the Government of India, and
Parliament of India and the most ambiguous one ‘Other Authorities’. Other
Authorities which have led the Judiciary system undergone various changes
of Judiciary opinion.  Cases where the definition of ‘Other Authorities’ has
successfully created chaos inside the courtroom are,

• The University of Madras vs Santa Bai (AIR 1954 Mad 67)

• Sukhdev Singh vs Bhagatram (AIR 1975  SC 1331)

• Ajay Hasia vs Khalid Mujib (1981 AIR 487)

• Chandra Mohan Khanna vs NCERT (1982 AIR 76)

• Pradeep Kr. Biswas vs Indian Institute of Chemical Biology (Appeal civil 992
of 2002)

To give a wider dimension to fundamental Rights, the judiciary has

interpreted ‘State’ in indifferent contexts at different times. In the case of the
University of Madras vs Santa Bai (AIR 1954 Mad 67), the madras High Court
evolved the principle of Ejusdim generis i.e of the like nature. It means that
the authorities are covered under the expression ‘other authorities which
perform governmental and sovereign functions.

Again in Sukhdev Singh vs Bhagatram (AIR 1975  SC 1331), LIC, ONGC, and
IFC were held to be State as performing very close to governmental and
sovereign functions. The corporations state when they enjoy

1. Power to make regulation

2. Regulations have the force of law

3. Clearance of five seats

The Court observed in Ajay Hasia vs Khalid Mujib (1981 AIR 487), whether a
juristic person is a State, the question arose whether the Regional
Engineering College, Srinagar, established, administered and managed by
society as registered under the J & K Registration of Societies Act, was a
State defined in the meaning of Article 12. Justice Bhagabati, speaking, the
unanimous five judge-bench, reiterated that the tests for determining on
when a corporation falls within the definition of State in Article 12 is whether
it is an instrumentality or agency of government. The inquiry must be not
how the juristic person is born but why it has been brought into existence. It
is, therefore, immaterial whether the corporation is created by the statute or
under a statute. The concept of machinery or agency of government is not
limited to an organization created by the statute but is equally applicable to a
company or society considering the relevant factors as explained in the
International Airport Authority case.

While in Chandra Mohan Khanna vs NCERT (1982 AIR 76), it was held that
NCERT, has been held to be outside the scope of Article 12. NCERT is a
society registered under the Societies Registration Act. It is largely an
autonomous body; its activities are not wholly associated with the
governmental functions; governmental control is confined mostly to ensuring
that its funds are properly utilized; its funding is not entirely from
government sources.
Another example of an expansive interpretation of the expression ‘other
authorities’ is Pradeep Kr. Biswas vs Indian Institute of Chemical Biology
(Appeal civil 992 of 2002), In this case, the Supreme Court held that the
Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) is an authority under Art.
12 and was bound by Art. 14. The Court has ruled that the “Control of the
Government in CSIR is ubiquitous. The court has now laid down the
subsequent proposition for identification of ‘authority’ within Art. 12.

Conclusion
In the end, it was clarified that ‘authorities’ would refer those that had ‘the
power to form laws or the power to possess discretion vested in it’. Also, in
response to members who were against to the use of the term ‘State’, it was
argued that it would be the list out the various institutions upon whom
fundamental rights were binding; therefore the term ‘State’ – with its
comprehensiveness and economy of words – was useful to adopt throughout
the fundamental rights section and therefore in the Constitution.

The Assembly adopted the Article with just only one amendment: ‘or under
the government of India’ was added as a part of the Article to account for
those territories which were not part of India but nonetheless under the
control of the Indian government.
Short Note

SOCIAL JUSTICE

Social Justice as a concept arose in the early 19th century during the Industrial Revolution and
subsequent civil revolutions throughout Europe, which aimed to create more egalitarian societies
and remedy capitalistic exploitation of human labour. Because of the stark stratifications between
wealthy and the poor during this time, early social justice advocates focused primarily on capital,
property, and the distribution of wealth. By the mid-20th century, social justice had expanded from
being primarily concerned with economics to include other spheres of social life to include the
environment, race, gender, and other causes and manifestations of inequality. Concurrently, the
measure of social justice expanded from being measured and enacted only by the nation-state (or
government) to include a universal human dimension. For example, governments (still today)
measure income inequality among people who share citizenship in common.

Several organizations and institutions provide their own definitions for social justice. Here are a few:
―Social justice may be broadly understood as the fair and compassionate distribution of the fruits of
economic growth. ―Social justice is the view that everyone deserves equal economic, political and
social rights and opportunities. Social workers aim to open the doors of access and opportunity for
everyone particularly those in greatest need.’’ ―Social justice encompasses economic justice. Social
justice is the virtue which guides us in creating those organized human interactions we call
institutions. In turn, social institutions, when justly organized, provide us with access to what is good
for the person, both individually and in our associations with others. Social justice also imposes on
each of us a personal responsibility to work with others to design and continually perfect our
institutions as tools for personal and social development.

Constitutional Provisions Relevant to Social Justice

Article 23: Prohibition of traffic in human beings and forced labour.

Article 24: Prohibition of employment of children in factories, etc.

Article 37: Application of the principles contained in this Part (DPSP).

Article 38: State to secure a social order for the promotion of welfare of the people.

Article 39: Certain principles of policy to be followed by the State.

Article 39A: Equal justice and free legal aid.

Article 46: Promotion of Educational and Economic interests of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes
and other weaker sections.

Social Safeguards

Article 17: Abolition of Untouchability

Article 25: Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion.

Political Safeguards

Article 330: Reservation of seats for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the House of the

People.

Article 332: Reservation of seats for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the Legislative
Assemblies of the States.

Article 334: Reservation of seats and special representation to cease after sixty years.

Article 243D: Reservation of seats (in Panchayats).

Article 243T: Reservation of seats (in Municipalities).