ARTICLE 12 II
The expression ‘other authorities will include all constitutional or statutory authorities on whom powers are conferred for the purpose of carrying commercial activities or bodies created for the purpose of promoting economic activities.
The expression ‘other authorities’ is not confined only to statutory corporations alone but may include a government company, a registered society, or bodies which have some nexus with government.
Similarly, in Star Enterprises v. C.T.D.C. of Maharashtra Ltd, (1990) 3 SCC 280.]it has been held that a government company under Section 617 of the Companies Act constituted as the Development Authority under the Maharashtra State Town Planning Act, 1966 is a State’ within the meaning of Article 12 and therefore in its dealings with the citizens of India it would be required to act within the Rule of law and would not be permitted to conduct its activities arbitrarily.
in U.P. Warehousing Corporation v. Vijai Narain, (1980) 3 SCC 459. it was held that the UP. Warehousing Corporation which was constituted under a statute and owned and controlled by the Government was an agency or instrumentality of the Government and therefore, the State” within the meaning of Article 12. Its employees have a statutory status and therefore in case of wrongful dismissal of an employee a writ could be issued against such body.
Chinnappa Reddy, J., agreeing with majority, in his separate judgment summed up the position as follow The function of the State has completely changed. It is a welfare State which has resulted in inter se governmental activity in manifold ways. Its activities have touched many aspects of a citizen’s life. The Government, directly or through the corporations, now owns or manages a large number of industries and institutions. It is the biggest trader in the country. The Government, its agencies and instrumentalities, corporation set by it or owned by it have thus become the biggest employers in the country. There is no reason why, if government is bound to observe the equality clauses of the Constitution in the matter of employment, should not be equally bound. It is therefore right and the independence and integrity of those employed in the public sector should be secured as much as the “independence and integrity of civil servants”
in Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib, AIR 1981 SC 487. it has been held that a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1898, is an agency or “instrumentality of the State and hence a State’ within the meaning of Article 12.
Its composition is determined by the representatives of the Government. The expenses of society are entirely provided by the Central Government. The rules made by the society require prior approval of the State and Central Governments. The society is to comply with all directions of the Government. It is completely controlled by the Government. The Government has power to appoint and remove the members of the society. Thus, the State and the Central Government have full control of the working of the society. In view of these elements the society is an instrumentality of the State or the Central Government and it is therefore an authority” within the meaning of Article 12. The test is not as to how the juristic person is created but why it has been brought into existence. A corporation may be statutory corporation created by a statute or a government company formed under the Companies Act, 1956, or a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1960, or any other similar statute. It would be an authority within the meaning of Article 12 if it is an instrumentality or agency of the Government and that would have to be decided on a proper assessment of the case in the light of the relevant factors.
B.S. MINHAS V. INDIAN STATISTICAL INSTITUTE, (1983) 4 SCC 582 FOLLOWING AJAY HASIA V. KHALID MUJIB
It has been held that the Indian Statistical Society, a society Registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 being under the complete control of the Government of India is an Instrumentality of the Central Government and therefore, an authority” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution Accordingly, a writ-petition under Article 32 against the Institute for violation of fundamental rights is maintainable.
Similarly, in P.K. Ramchandra Aver v. Union of India, (1984)2 SCC 142. the Court held that the Indian Council of Agricultural Research a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, is an instrumentality of Central Government, and an authority” within the meaning of Article 12 and, therefore, amenable to writ-jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution.
SHEELA BARSE V. SECRETARY, CHILDREN’S AID SOCIETY, (1986) 3 SCC 156.
The Court held that the children’s Aid Society, Bombay registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 was an instrumentality of the State and fell within the expression ‘the State’ within the meaning of Article 12.
M.C. MEHTA V. UNION OF INDIA, ( (1987) 1 SCC 395.)
The important question which was raised before the Court was whether a private corporation fell within the ambit of Article 12. Although the question was not finally decided by the Court, but it stressed the need to do so in future.
TEKRAJ VASANDI V. UNION OF INDIA, (1988) 1 SCC 236.
It has been held that the Institute of Constitutional and Parliamentary Studies “a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, is not a State within the meaning of Article 12. The Institute of Constitutional and Parliamentary Studies is neither an agency nor an instrumentality of the State. It is a voluntary organisation. The object of the society is not related, to government business. In the functioning of the society, the Government does not have deep and pervasive control. A society registered under the Societies Registration Act may be treated, as ‘State’ if either the government business is undertaken by the society or the public obligation of the State is undertaken by the society. Since such a position is not present in the present case the Institute of Constitutional and ‘Parliamentary Studies does not come within the purview of other authorities in Article 12.
SRI KONA SEEMA CO-OPERATIVE CENTRAL BANK LTD. V. N. SEETHARAMA RAJU, AIR 1990 AIR 171
It has been held that the Co-operative Bank registered under the A.P. Co-operative Societies Act is not State’ within the meaning of Article 12 as the functions of the Bank were not of public importance and not closely related to governmental function. The Bank’s main object was to raise funds to finance its members.
CHANDRA MOHAN KHANNA V. NCERT AIR 1992 SC 76.
Following Tekraj Vasanji v. Union of India the Court has held that National Council of Educational Research and Trainng, is not a State’ within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution
PRADEEP KUMAR BISWAS V. INDIAN INSTITUTE OF CHEMICAL BIOLOGY (2002) 5 SCC (111).
A seven judge Bench of the Supreme Court by a majority of 5:2 has overruled the decision in Sabbajit Tewari case and held that CSIR is an instrumentality of the State within the meaning of Art. 12 of the Constitution.
G. BASSI REDDY V. INTERNATIONAL CROPS RESEARCH INSTT. AIR 2003 SC 1764.
It has been held that the International Crop Research Institute is an international organization and has been set up as non-profit research and training centre to help developing countries to alleviate rural poverty and hunger in various ways is therefore, not a ‘State’ within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution.
GENERAL MANAGER, KISAN SAHKARI CHINI MILLS LTD., SULTANPUR, U.P. V. SATRUGHAN NISHAD, AIR 2003 SC 4531.
It has been held that the Co-operative Sugar Mill was neither instrumentality nor agency of Government and, therefore, not ‘State’ within the meaning of Art. 12 of the Constitution.
V. K. SRIVASTAVA V. U. P. RAJYA KARMACHARI KALYAN NIGAM, AIR 2005 SC 411.
It has been held that the U.P. Rajya Karmachari Kalyan Nigam is an agency and instrumentality of State and, therefore, is a State within the meaning of Art. 12.
ASSAM SMALL SCALE INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. V. J.D. PHARMA CEUTICALS, AIR 2006 SC 131
The Supreme Court has held that the Assam Small Scale Industries Development Corporation Ltd. is a statutory body and is State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution.
PUNJAB WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD V. RANJODH SINGH AIR 2007 SC 1082.
It has been held that an autonomous body is a State’ within the meaning of Art. 12 of the Constitution.
LT. GOVERNOR OF DELHI V. K. SODHI AIR 2007 SC 2555.
The supreme court held that the state of council of educational research and training (scert) is not a ‘state’ within the meaning of art. 12 of the constitution.
(d) Authorities under the control of the Government of India— By, words authorities under control of the Government of India, it is meant to bring into the definition of State all areas outside Indian territory but which are under or may come under the control of the Government of India, such as, mandatory or trustee territories. Such a territory may come under India’s control by international agreement Thus even such areas will be the subject to Part III and the inhabitants of such areas may also claim the benefit of Fundamental Rights guaranteed in Part III.
Is Judiciary included in the word “State”? — The question whether the judiciary was included within the definition of the State’ in Article 12 arose for consideration of the Supreme Court in Naresh v. State of Maharashtra, [AIR 1967 SC 1.]
It was held that even if a Court is the State a writ under Article 32 cannot he issued to a High Court of competent jurisdiction against its judicial orders, because such orders cannot be said to violate the fundamental rights.
In view of the judgment of 7 Judges Bench of the Supreme Court in A.R. Antulay v. R,S. Nayak, where it has been held that the court cannot pass an order or issue a direction (which would be violative of fundamental rights of citizens, it can be said that the expression State” as defined in Article 12 of the Constitution includes judiciary also.
