Introduction
Part III of the Constitution of India guarantees Fundamental Rights to citizens. These rights are primarily enforceable against the "State". Article 12 of the Constitution defines the term "State" to include the Government and Parliament of India, the Government and Legislature of each State, and all local or other authorities. The interpretation of the phrase "other authorities" has been a subject of significant judicial consideration. Over time, the Indian judiciary has expanded the meaning of this term to ensure that fundamental rights can be upheld against a wide range of bodies that exercise public functions. This write-up will trace the development of this concept through key judicial decisions.
Early Judicial Interpretation
Initially, the judiciary adopted a somewhat restrictive interpretation of "other authorities". However, a significant step towards a broader interpretation was taken in Rajasthan State Electricity Board v. Mohan Lal (1967). In this case, the Supreme Court held that the term "other authorities" is not limited to bodies that perform sovereign or governmental functions. The Court decided that a body could be considered an "authority" under Article 12 if it is created by a statute and has the power to make rules or regulations that have the force of law. The Court rejected the argument that the principle of ejusdem generis (of the same kind) should apply, which would have limited "other authorities" to bodies similar to governments or legislatures. Therefore, the Rajasthan State Electricity Board, being a statutory body, was held to be "State".
The Emergence of the "Instrumentality or Agency" Test
The concept of a body being an "instrumentality or agency" of the government was a crucial development. In Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagatram (1975), the Supreme Court confirmed that statutory corporations like the Life Insurance Corporation (LIC) and the Oil and Natural Gas Commission (ONGC) were "State" under Article 12. While the majority relied on the fact that they were statutory bodies with extensive government control, Justice Mathew, in his concurring opinion, went further. He argued that the focus should be on whether the body is an "instrumentality or agency" of the government, regardless of its legal form.
However, the law was not yet settled. In Sabhajit Tewary v. Union of India (1975), a bench of the Supreme Court held that the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, was not a "State". The Court reasoned that it was not a statutory body and its functions were not governmental in nature, which created some inconsistency in the judicial approach.
Consolidation of the Modern Test
The modern, expansive test was firmly established in R. D. Shetty v. International Airport Authority (1979). The Court, through Justice Bhagwati, held that the International Airport Authority was "State". It laid down several indicators to determine if a body is an agency or instrumentality of the State, such as deep and pervasive state control, the body's functions being of public importance, and significant financial assistance from the government.
This test was formally adopted and elaborated in Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib (1981). The Supreme Court held that a society registered under the Societies Registration Act could be considered "State" if it was an instrumentality of the government. This effectively overruled the narrow view taken in Sabhajit Tewary. The Court in Ajay Hasia laid down a six-point test to determine if a body is an instrumentality of the government. These included considering the State's financial and administrative control, its monopoly status, and the public nature of its functions. The Court clarified that the test is not a rigid formula but a set of guiding principles. This was further affirmed in Som Prakash Rekhi v. Union of India (1981), where a government company, Bharat Petroleum Corporation, was also held to be "State".
Conclusion
The judicial interpretation of "State" under Article 12 has evolved from a narrow, formalistic approach to a broad, functional one. The Supreme Court has moved away from focusing on the legal form of a body to examining the nature of its functions and the extent of government control. The "instrumentality or agency" test, as laid down in R. D. Shetty and consolidated in Ajay Hasia, ensures that bodies which are, in substance, acting on behalf of the government are held accountable for violations of Fundamental Rights. This expansive interpretation has been crucial in protecting individual liberties against the growing power of various quasi-governmental entities in a modern welfare state.
References
- Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib (1981) 1 SCC 722.
- R. D. Shetty v. International Airport Authority (1979) 3 SCC 489.
- Rajasthan State Electricity Board v. Mohan Lal (1967) 3 SCR 377.
- Sabhajit Tewary v. Union of India (1975) 1 SCC 485.
- Som Prakash Rekhi v. Union of India (1981) 1 SCC 449.
- Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagatram (1975) 3 SCR 619.
