सं Samvidhan

The Constitution of India

Article 12

Definitions

Why this exists

Fundamental Rights (Part III) are mainly meant to be enforced against public power, not private individuals. The framers needed to define exactly who counts as 'the State' so citizens know who can be sued or held accountable for violating these rights. By including not just the executive but also legislatures and 'other authorities,' Article 12 ensures that laws passed by Parliament or state assemblies, and actions by bodies like municipalities or statutory corporations, can all be challenged if they violate Fundamental Rights.

How courts read it

The phrase 'other authorities' has been the most litigated part of this Article. In Rajasthan State Electricity Board v. Mohan Lal (1967), the Supreme Court held that statutory bodies with power to make binding rules could qualify as 'State.' Later, in Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagatram (1975) and especially Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib (1981), the Court laid down a functional test: if a body is financially, functionally, and administratively controlled by the government (deep and pervasive control), it counts as 'State,' even if it is technically a separate corporation or society. This has been used to bring bodies like universities, public sector undertakings, and regulatory authorities within Article 12's scope. However, the Court has also clarified (e.g., in Zee Telefilms v. Union of India, 2005, regarding BCCI) that not every body performing public functions automatically becomes 'State' unless there is sufficient governmental control.

Common misconceptions
  • Myth: Only the executive government (like ministries) counts as 'the State' under Article 12.
    Fact: Courts have held that Parliament, state legislatures, and various government-controlled corporations, universities, and authorities can also count as 'the State,' depending on the level of government control.
  • Myth: Any organization that performs a public function is automatically 'the State' under Article 12.
    Fact: Courts have clarified that mere public function isn't enough — there must be significant governmental ownership, financial control, or administrative control, as seen in cases like Zee Telefilms v. Union of India regarding the BCCI.