Article 12 defines the term ‘State‘ for the purpose of Part III of the Constitution as most of the fundamental rights contained in the Part III of the Constitution are guaranteed against the ‘State’. The action of any bodies falling under the scope of ‘State’ can be challenged in the court for violation of Fundamental Rights.
According to Article 12, the term ‘State’ includes-
(a) Government and Parliament of India
(b) Government and legislature of each state
(c) all local bodies and other authorities under the control of Government of India
Government departments and official bodies fall within the ambit of ‘State’ without any doubt.
But “other authorities” is the most significant term used in Article 12. This particular term has not been defined in the Constitution. Therefore, it attracted a lot of judicial attention. The term ‘other authorities’ had been widely interpreted by the courts which led to more and more authorities trapped in the ambit of Fundamental Rights.
As government performs multiple number of functions for the people or can be said as government is completely based on the philosophy of welfare state. And in this process some functions are discharged with autonomous bodies like companies, corporations etc. Now the doubt arouse during there interpretations were that whether these autonomous bodies fall within the definition of Article 12 or not.
So, in order to answer this Supreme Court had developed the concept of instrumentality of the State stating any body which is regarded as instrumentality of state fall within the ambit of Article 12.
During the interpretations of the term ‘other authorities’ it had been interpreted differently by the by the courts in different cases.
(a) Rajasthan Electricity Board v. Mohanlal, AIR 1967, the court held Article 12 ( other authorities ) is wide enough to include all authorities created by the Constitution or statute on whom the power is conferred by the law. It is not necessary that the authority must be engaged in performing governmental and sovereign functions.
(b) Sukhdev v. Bhagat, AIR 1975, Supreme Court held three statutory bodies i.e. Life Insurance Corporation (LIC), Oil and Natural Gas Corporation (ONGC) and Finance Corporation as ‘State’ and stated that if the functions of the corporations are of public importance and closely related to governmental functions then it should be treated as instrumentality of government that is ‘State’.
(c) R D Shetty v. International Airport Authority, AIR 1979, Supreme Court thoroughly considered what all was laid down in Sukhdev Singh’s case. The court developed general proposition that instrumentality of state would be regarded within Article 12. The court also laid down tests in order to determine instrumentality of body or not-
(I) entire share capital of the body held by the government.
(II) body enjoys monopoly status which is state conferred or protected by state.
(III) deep and persuasive state control.
(IV) almost entire expenditure of the body financially assisted by government.
(V) functional character of the body should be governmental in essence.
The court also held that these tests are not conclusive, they are illustrative and should be used with care and caution.
(d) Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib, AIR 1981, Court held that once a body becomes ‘authority’ for the purpose of Article 12, its actions can be challenged with reference to Fundamental Rights and these are also subjects to writ jurisdictions of Supreme Court and High Courts.
So, with all such cases as interpreted by courts very far we have come to the conclusion that yes we agree with the statement that the term ‘other authorities’ has been widely interpreted by the courts just in order to come to the conclusion which all other authorities except the governmental bodies should be considered under the ambit of Article 12 as there is not any particular defined term of ‘other authorities’ in the Constitution of India.
