Understanding the Concept of State in the Indian Constitution

As a law student, it is essential to grasp the concept of State as defined under the Indian Constitution. This understanding is crucial, given that Fundamental Rights of individuals are specifically guaranteed against State actions. This article delves into the intricacies of what constitutes a State under Article 12 of the Indian Constitution and explores the various authorities and bodies that can be considered as State.

Definition of State in the Indian Constitution

According to Article 12 of the Indian Constitution, the term 'State' includes:

1. Government

This encompasses the Central Government, State Governments, and local bodies, including Panchayats and Municipalities.

2. Parliament and State Legislatures

These legislative bodies are integral to the functioning of the State through their power to make laws that govern the citizens.

3. Other Authorities and Bodies

The definition extends to other authorities or bodies exercising governmental powers, such as corporations, regulatory bodies, and quasi-judicial bodies, provided they meet certain criteria.

R.D Shetty v. Airport Authority of India Interpretation

In the landmark case of R.D Shetty v. Airport Authority of India (1979), Justice P.N. Bhagwati laid down a six-point test to determine whether a body is an agency or instrumentality of the State:

Governmental Funding: The organization must be primarily funded by the government, often holding a substantial share of government equity. Government Control: There must be a deep and extensive state control system in place. Public Importance: The functioning of the body is of public importance and closely tied to government functions. Governmental Nature: The primary functions of the body should be governmental in nature. Transfer of Department: A government department may be transferred to a company. Government Safeguarded Status: The status of monopoly or exclusive rights must be bestowed and safeguarded by the state.

According to the Supreme Court, if even one point qualifies, it can be considered a State. However, if the control is merely regulatory, it does not classify as a State.

Separation of Judiciary and State

It is important to understand the distinction between the judiciary and the State, especially concerning rule-making and judicial functions:

R.A. Antulay v. R.S. Naik and Ors.: The Supreme Court ruled that when the judiciary exercises its rule-making power under Article 32 and 226, it can be challenged, making it a State for certain purposes. Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar and Ors v. State of Maharashtra: The judiciary, when exercising judicial power, is not considered a State. The remedy is limited to an appeal, and Article 32 and 226 are inoperative against the State.

Quasi-judicial Bodies and State

Quasi-judicial bodies are those that perform functions akin to the judiciary but may lack some of the judicial powers. The status of such bodies as States depends on specific conditions:

Ultra Vires Actions: If a quasi-judicial body acts in excess of its jurisdiction or violates the principles of natural justice, its actions can be curtailed by the courts. Non-compliance with Rules and Procedures: Deviation from mandatory rules and procedures prescribed under relevant law can also invalidate the body's actions.

Examples of Non-State Entities

Some entities that are not considered States include:

BCCI (Board of Control for Cricket in India): While functioning as a regulator for cricket, BCCI is not considered a State. Co-operative Societies: These societies, although important in their socio-economic role, do not have the characteristics of State bodies.

Conclusion

Understanding the concept of State in the Indian Constitution is vital for legal practitioners, scholars, and citizens to fully comprehend the extent of protection and enforcement of Fundamental Rights. The Supreme Court's guidelines and interpretations in key cases provide a comprehensive framework for determining State status, thereby ensuring that the rights of citizens are upheld appropriately.