Definition of State

Legal provision

• Article 12: in Part III, unless the context otherwise requires, "the State" includes the Government and Parliament of India, 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.
• Article 36: in Part IV, "the State" has the same meaning as in Part III.
• Article 13(2): the State shall not make any law which takes away or abridges the rights in Part III.
• Articles 32 and 226: the Supreme Court and High Courts can issue writs to enforce Part III. Article 226 also covers "any other purpose".
• General Clauses Act, 1897, section 3(31): defines "local authority" (cited from the Act, not from the repo Constitution data).

Meaning and definition

The State in Article 12 has four parts. The first two are plain: the Union Government and Parliament, and each State's Government and Legislature. The third and fourth, "local authorities" and "other authorities", need explanation.

A body that is State must obey Part III. A citizen can enforce a Fundamental Right against it under Article 32 or Article 226. A body outside Article 12 cannot be sued for a Fundamental Right breach.

Detailed explanation

Step 1: local authorities

"Local authority" is understood with the General Clauses Act, 1897. It covers a municipal committee, district board, port commissioners or another authority legally entitled to control or manage a municipal or local fund. Municipal corporations, municipalities and panchayats are examples. This part of Article 12 has caused little dispute.

Step 2: other authorities, the early view

The Constitution does not define "other authorities". The earliest readings were narrow. They said the phrase covers only bodies that exercise governmental or sovereign functions. In Rajasthan State Electricity Board v. Mohan Lal (1967), the Supreme Court read it widely. A statutory body with power to make rules that bind others is an "authority", even if it does not perform sovereign functions.

Step 3: the instrumentality idea

In Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagatram Sardar Singh Raghuvanshi (1975), the Court held that the Oil and Natural Gas Commission, the Life Insurance Corporation and the Industrial Finance Corporation are "authorities". They are created by statute and can make regulations, including on the terms of their staff. Alagiriswami J dissented. Mathew J added the theory of the instrumentality of the State: a body may be State if it is in substance an instrument or agency of the Government.

Step 4: Shetty and Ajay Hasia, the factors

In R.D. Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India (1979), Bhagwati J listed factors for the instrumentality test. In Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi (1981), he gathered them into a checklist for a society that ran a regional engineering college.

• Is the whole share capital held by the Government?
• Does the body enjoy a monopoly conferred or protected by the State?
• Is the Government's control deep and pervasive?
• Are the functions of public importance and close to governmental functions?
• Was a department of the Government transferred to the body?

The factors work together. No single factor decides the question. They call for an overall view.

Step 5: Pradeep Kumar Biswas, the refined test

A seven-Judge Bench in Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology (2002) re-examined the earlier cases. Ruma Pal J wrote for the majority. The Court held that the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) is State and overruled Sabhajit Tewary (1975), which had held otherwise. The test asks whether the body is financially, functionally and administratively dominated by, or under the control of, the Government. The control must be particular to the body and pervasive. General regulatory control, which the Government has over many bodies, is not enough.

Step 6: Zee Telefilms, the outer limit

In Zee Telefilms Ltd. v. Union of India (2005), the Court held that the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) is not State under Article 12. The Government held no share in it, gave it no substantial funds and did not control its working deeply. This was so even though its work, such as picking the national team, is of public importance. The Court also noted that a body outside Article 12 may still face a writ under Article 226 where it performs a public function.

Don't confuse: Article 12 and Article 226

Common mistakes

• Writing that a body is State only if it performs governmental functions. Mohan Lal rejected that narrow view.
• Applying one factor as a rigid test. The factors must be weighed together.
• Saying BCCI is State because it has a monopoly. Zee Telefilms held that it is not.
• Mixing Article 12 and Article 226. A body may fail Article 12 and still face a writ.

Apply it

Leading case laws

• Rajasthan State Electricity Board v. Mohan Lal (1967)

  Facts. The question was whether the Rajasthan State Electricity Board is an "authority" under Article 12.

  Principle. "Other authorities" is not limited to bodies with sovereign functions. A statutory body with power to make binding regulations qualifies.

  Why it matters. It rejected the narrow reading.

• Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagatram Sardar Singh Raghuvanshi (1975)

  Facts. Employees of the ONGC, LIC and Industrial Finance Corporation sought to enforce Fundamental Rights against their employers.

  Principle. Statutory corporations with power to make regulations are "authorities". Alagiriswami J dissented. Mathew J's separate opinion proposed the instrumentality theory.

  Why it matters. It is the source of the instrumentality idea.

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

  Facts. The challenge concerned a tender decision of the International Airport Authority.

  Principle. Bhagwati J set out factors for deciding whether a body is an instrumentality of the State. The Authority was State.

  Why it matters. It gave the first structured test.

• Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi (1981)

  Facts. A society registered under the Societies Registration Act ran a regional engineering college. A candidate challenged its admission process.

  Principle. The factors were put into a checklist to be weighed together. The society was State.

  Why it matters. It is the most quoted checklist.

• Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology (2002)

  Facts. The question was whether CSIR is State. A seven-Judge Bench reconsidered the earlier cases.

  Principle. The test is financial, functional and administrative domination by, or control of, the Government, particular to the body and pervasive. Sabhajit Tewary was overruled.

  Why it matters. It is the current formulation.

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

  Facts. The question was whether the BCCI is State under Article 12.

  Principle. BCCI is not State. Public importance alone is not enough. A writ under Article 226 may still lie against a body that performs a public function.

  Why it matters. It marks the outer limit of Article 12.

How to write this answer in the exam

Key points to remember

• Article 12: Government and Parliament of India, Government and Legislature of each State, local or other authorities.
• Mohan Lal (1967): not limited to sovereign functions.
• Sukhdev Singh (1975): statutory corporations; Mathew J's instrumentality theory.
• R.D. Shetty (1979) and Ajay Hasia (1981): factors, weighed together.
• Pradeep Kumar Biswas (2002): domination or control, particular and pervasive; Sabhajit Tewary overruled.
• Zee Telefilms (2005): BCCI is not State; Article 226 may still apply.

Quick self-test

Related topics

• Citizenship
• General Principles relating to Fundamental Rights(Art.13)
• Doctrine of Judicial Review