Article 12 of The Constitution – Case Laws | Important Acts and Laws for Judiciary Exams PDF Download

Judicial Orders and Fundamental Rights

• Case Background: In the legal case of Naresh Sridhar Mirajkar v. the State of Maharashtra (1966), the central question posed to the court was whether a judicial order could violate the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Indian Constitution and if such an order could be challenged through a writ.
• Court's Decision: The court emphasized that a judicial decision made by a competent court does not have the power to infringe upon the fundamental rights of citizens. The primary role of a judicial decision is to resolve the specific dispute presented before the court and nothing beyond that.
• Judiciary's Role: It was clarified that the judiciary, in carrying out its judicial duties, does not fall under the definition of the 'state' and thus cannot be subjected to writ petitions. The judiciary's function is limited to resolving legal disputes and is not an entity against which writs can be directed.

In the case of Rajasthan Electricity Board v. Mohan Lal (1967), The Supreme Court laid down the test for determining whether certain bodies would fall under the category of 'other authorities.'

Rajasthan Electricity Board v. Mohan Lal (1967)

• has the authority to issue directions with offenses against them punishable by law.
• possesses the power to establish rules with statutory implications.
• functions as an agency or instrumentality of the state to conduct businesses that would otherwise be managed by state departments.
• A dispute arose between the Rajasthan State Electricity Board and certain workers concerning promotions, invoking claims under Article 14 and Article 16 of the Constitution.
• The question raised was whether the Board falls within the scope of Part III of the Constitution and qualifies as 'State' under Article 12.

Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagatram (1975)

• The court deliberated on whether entities like ONGC, LIC, and IFC should be considered 'state' under Article 12.
• A panel of five judges determined that these organizations received substantial financial backing from the government and were subject to significant governmental oversight.

Landmark Legal Cases on State Entities

• The court, in this case, applied a test established in Rajasthan Electricity Board's case and classified certain entities as 'state' under Article 12.

Rajasthan Electricity Board

• The case of Sabhajit Tewary v. Union of India (1975) was heard by the same bench as Sukhdev Singh's case. It was decided that the Rajasthan Electricity Board was deemed as 'state'.

Sabhajit Tewary v. Union of India (1975)

In this case, the Supreme Court deliberated on whether the Council of Industrial and Scientific Research (CISR) qualified as 'state' under Article 12.

• When the entity performs essential state functions.
• When it operates under significant government control.

The court concluded that CISR did not meet the criteria to be considered as 'state'.

CISR not to be 'state'

In R.D. Shetty v. Airport Authority of India (1979), Justice P.N. Bhagwati introduced a 5-point test to determine an entity's status as an agency of the state.

• Criterion 1
• Criterion 2
• Criterion 3
• Criterion 4
• Criterion 5

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

• When the financial resources of the State are the primary funding source, and the government holds the entire share capital, the agency falls under the scope of Article 12 of the Constitution.
• If the State exercises significant control over the operations of the agency.
• The agency's functions should hold public importance, reflecting a governmental character.
• Transformation of a government department into a corporation.
• Granting a 'monopoly status' by the State to the agency, thereby providing protection.

These criteria serve as examples and should be interpreted with careful consideration. In the case of Som Prakash v. Union of India (1980), the Supreme Court determined that a Government company such as Bharat Petroleum Corporation falls within the definition of 'the State' under Article 12.

Som Prakash v. Union of India (1980)

• The term 'other authorities' encompasses all constitutional or statutory bodies empowered to advance economic activities. It is not limited to statutory corporations but may also include government companies, registered societies, or entities affiliated with the government.
• The crucial question posed to the Court was whether a private corporation is covered by Article 12, which remains unresolved to date.

Understanding Judicial Interpretations of Fundamental Rights

• Interpretation of Judicial Orders: In the case of A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Naik (1988), the court established that when a judicial order from a competent court indirectly impacts a person's fundamental rights, the appropriate course of action is not to claim a violation of these rights under Article 32 or 226. Instead, individuals should challenge the court's decision by alleging that it does not align with fundamental rights, pursuing the matter through an appeal or review process.
• Judiciary and the Definition of 'State': Building upon the above, the court concluded that the judiciary, in its exercise of judicial functions, does not fall within the purview of the term 'state' as outlined in Article 12 of the Constitution.
• Judicial Proceedings and Fundamental Rights: In the case of Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra (2002), the Supreme Court emphasized that no judicial proceeding can be deemed a violation of fundamental rights. Superior courts of justice are explicitly excluded from the categories of 'state' or 'other authorities' under Article 12.
• State Functions of Superior Judicial Bodies: It was clarified that a superior judicial body, when acting judicially, does not fall within the scope of 'state' under Article 12. However, if these bodies undertake administrative tasks such as conducting examinations, they then fall under the definition of 'state.' Remedies against them would only be applicable in instances where fundamental rights are infringed.

Legal Cases on Statehood in India

• In this case, the question arose whether CISR was considered an instrumentality of the state or fell under 'other authorities' as per Article 12.
• The court ruled that not every registered society needs direct government connections to be deemed a 'state'. Instead, if the body in question is functionally, financially, and administratively controlled by the government, it can be classified as an 'other authority' and thus a 'state' under Article 12.
• This case set a precedent for future cases concerning the interpretation of 'other authorities'.

Zee Telefilms v. Union of India (2005)

• In this case, the court deliberated whether the Board for Control of Cricket (BCCI) should be considered a state entity.
• Applying the tests outlined in Ajay Hasia and Pradeep Kumar's cases, it was found that the BCCI did not have government-held share capital, was not established by statute, and did not perform governmental functions for the public welfare.
• Consequently, the court concluded that the BCCI did not fall within the scope of Article 12 of the Indian Constitution.
• BCCI is determined not to fall under Article 12 of the Indian Constitution.

Sanjaya Bahel v. Union of India & Others (2019)

• The court in the Sanjaya Bahel case clarified that the United Nations cannot be considered a "State" as per Article 12 of the Indian Constitution.

In the Zee Telefilms case of 2005, the court ruled that the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) does not fall within the scope of Article 12 of the Indian Constitution. This decision sets a precedent regarding the application of constitutional provisions to certain entities like BCCI.

In the case of Sanjaya Bahel v. Union of India & Others in 2019, it was established that the United Nations cannot be categorized as a "State" under Article 12 of the Indian Constitution. The case revolved around a former UN employee's attempt to seek legal action against the United Nations Organization. However, the court dismissed the claim, emphasizing that the United Nations does not fit the criteria outlined in Article 12.

For instance, in the Sanjaya Bahel case, a former UNO employee facing disciplinary action sought legal recourse against the United Nations by contacting the Ministry of External Affairs. However, the court rejected the claim, citing that the United Nations is not subject to the jurisdiction under Article 12 of the Indian Constitution.

The Court's Judgment on United Nations Organization

• The court ruling emphasizes that the United Nations Organization, functioning as an international entity, cannot be categorized as an "instrumentality" or an "agency" of any government.

Significance of Fundamental Rights

• Within our constitution, specifically under Part III encompassing Article 12 to Article 35, a comprehensive list of Fundamental Rights is delineated.
• These rights are enshrined to establish a just society governed by the rule of law rather than tyranny.
• Fundamental Rights act as safeguards against the misuse of authority by governmental bodies, ensuring that citizens are shielded from potential abuses of power by the State.