Article 12 of the Indian Constitution
The Constitution of India is the supreme law of the country. It sets out the fundamental rights of citizens and places limitations on the powers of the government and other authorities. Part III of the Constitution, which contains the Fundamental Rights, is one of its most important parts. These rights protect individual liberty and ensure equality by placing restrictions on the power of the State. But to apply these restrictions, it is necessary to know what the word “State” actually means. Does it include only the central and state governments? What about local authorities, government-owned companies, or bodies that perform public functions?
The answer to this crucial question lies in Article 12. It defines the term “State” for the purpose of Part III (Fundamental Rights). Without Article 12, the scope of fundamental rights would be unclear and their enforcement uncertain. This article forms the very foundation for testing whether an action violates fundamental rights. In this detailed discussion, we will explore the meaning, scope, and importance of Article 12, examine how courts have interpreted it, and understand its impact on citizens and institutions.
Text of Article 12
Article 12 reads as follows:
“In this part, unless the context otherwise requires, the State includes the Government and Parliament of India and the Government and the Legislature of each of the States and all local or other authorities within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India.”
Although this sentence seems short and simple, every phrase has a very deep legal meaning. It sets the boundary for the applicability of fundamental rights. By defining what is meant by “the State,” it identifies the bodies and authorities whose actions can be challenged in court if they violate the rights guaranteed in Part III.
Purpose and Importance of Article 12
The framers of the Constitution realised that rights are meaningful only when they can be enforced against those who exercise power over individuals. If the word “State” was understood in a narrow sense—only as the Government—then many bodies performing governmental or public functions could escape constitutional responsibility. For example, public sector corporations, universities, municipal authorities, or statutory boards might argue that they are not the “State” and therefore not bound by fundamental rights.
Article 12 was therefore drafted to ensure that all bodies exercising public authority or performing functions of a governmental character are subject to the discipline of fundamental rights. This means that citizens can move the High Courts under Article 226 or the Supreme Court under Article 32 to enforce their rights against not just governments but also a wide range of authorities.
Scope of the Term “State”
Article 12 uses the word “includes” while defining the State. In legal drafting, the word “includes” indicates that the list provided is illustrative, not exhaustive. This means that the definition is broad and can cover more than what is specifically mentioned, as long as the body in question exercises governmental or public power.
The Article lists four broad categories:
-
The Government and Parliament of India
-
The Government and the Legislature of each State
-
All local authorities within the territory of India
-
Other authorities within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India
Each of these categories has been explained and interpreted in detail by courts.
Government and Parliament of India
The first category covers the Union Government in all its aspects. The Parliament of India, consisting of the President, the Lok Sabha (House of the People) and the Rajya Sabha (Council of States), is expressly included. This ensures that any law made by Parliament or any action of the Union Government is subject to fundamental rights.
For example, if Parliament passes a law that violates the right to equality under Article 14 or the right to freedom of speech under Article 19, the Supreme Court can strike it down as unconstitutional. Similarly, actions of the Union executive—such as orders of ministries, departments, or the President—are open to challenge if they violate fundamental rights.
Government and Legislature of Each State
The second category extends the same principle to state governments and state legislatures. State assemblies and their legislative councils (where they exist) are clearly included. The executive authorities of the states, including the Governor and the state administration, are also covered.
This means that state laws and executive actions must conform to the fundamental rights in the same way as central laws and actions. For example, if a state government issues an order that violates the right to equality or right to freedom of religion, it can be challenged before the High Court or the Supreme Court.
Local Authorities
The third category refers to local authorities within the territory of India. Local authorities are those bodies which have been constituted for local self-government or for the administration of local affairs. These include municipalities, municipal corporations, panchayats, district boards, improvement trusts, port trusts, and other bodies created under state or central laws to manage local areas.
The Supreme Court has explained that a local authority generally has the following features: it is legally created; it has some governmental functions; it has the power to raise funds, often by levying taxes; and it operates within a defined local area. Because such bodies exercise public powers, their acts must comply with fundamental rights.
Other Authorities within the Territory of India or under the Control of the Government of India
The most significant and far-reaching part of Article 12 is the phrase “other authorities within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India.” The Constitution does not define what “other authorities” means. This open-ended phrase has allowed courts to include within its scope a wide range of bodies that exercise public functions.
The need for such a wide definition is clear. Over time, governments may perform their work through new forms of organisation—statutory corporations, government companies, regulatory boards, universities, or even private bodies that perform public duties. If the Constitution had restricted itself only to conventional government departments, many of these agencies could escape accountability.
Indian courts, therefore, have interpreted “other authorities” broadly to include any body or agency that carries out governmental or public functions or is under the deep and pervasive control of the government. This includes statutory corporations like the Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC), public sector undertakings, universities created by statutes, and government-controlled companies.
Judicial Interpretation of “Other Authorities”
The true strength and flexibility of Article 12 can be seen in the way Indian courts have interpreted the words “other authorities.” Over decades of constitutional adjudication, a rich body of case law has emerged.
One early landmark case was University of Madras v. Shanta Bai (1954), where the Madras High Court took a narrow view, holding that “other authorities” should mean authorities of a governmental nature like the ones mentioned earlier and not every statutory body. However, this restrictive interpretation did not last long.
In Rajasthan Electricity Board v. Mohan Lal (1967), the Supreme Court took a wider view and held that a statutory corporation like the Rajasthan Electricity Board is an authority because it is created by law and has the power to issue directions and enforce them. The Court ruled that any authority created by the Constitution or by law and invested with the power to make rules or regulations having the force of law is included in Article 12.
Later, in Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagatram (1975), the Court held that statutory corporations like ONGC, LIC and IFC are “authorities” because they perform public duties and are subject to government control. The Court emphasised that it is not the form of the body but the nature of its functions and the degree of government control that matter.
The meaning was further expanded in R.D. Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India (1979). Here, even though the International Airport Authority had some autonomy, it was held to be an authority under Article 12 because it performed public functions and was subject to extensive government control. The Court stressed that governmental control and the character of the duty performed are key tests.
The landmark case Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi (1981) laid down detailed tests to determine when a body is an “instrumentality or agency” of the government. The Court said that the nature of functions, financial assistance, degree of government control, and whether the body enjoys a monopoly conferred by the State are all relevant factors. Even a society registered under the Societies Registration Act can be considered an authority if it satisfies these tests.
In Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology (2002), a seven-judge bench reaffirmed these principles, clarifying that the decisive factor is whether the body is financially, functionally and administratively dominated by or under the control of the government. If so, it is a State under Article 12.
Coverage of Public Sector Undertakings and Government Companies
A significant effect of these judgments is that public sector undertakings (PSUs) and government companies are generally treated as part of the “State” when they are owned or controlled by the government and perform public functions. This includes major corporations in sectors like oil, power, transport, and finance.
As a result, employees of these organisations can challenge violations of equality or unfair treatment under Article 14, and citizens can question their actions if they infringe other fundamental rights.
Role of Article 12 in Enforcing Fundamental Rights
Article 12 is not just a definitional clause; it is the gateway for enforcing fundamental rights. Articles 13, 32 and 226, which give citizens the right to move courts against violation of fundamental rights, operate only when the violation is by the “State” as defined in Article 12.
For example, if a law made by Parliament or a state legislature infringes the right to equality under Article 14, it can be struck down. If an action by a public sector company violates the right to freedom of speech, the affected person can approach the court for protection.
Without the wide definition of “State” in Article 12, many powerful bodies that affect people’s lives—such as universities, electricity boards, and government corporations—could argue that they are private entities beyond constitutional scrutiny.
Private Bodies and Article 12
A question often arises whether purely private organisations can be treated as the State. The general rule is that purely private bodies are not “State” under Article 12. However, courts have occasionally extended constitutional discipline to private actors in special situations.
If a private body performs a public function of great importance, such as managing a public park or a vital utility under delegation from the government, courts may apply fundamental rights indirectly. This is sometimes called the “public function” or “public duty” doctrine. Even when a body is not strictly a “State,” courts can issue writs like mandamus to ensure fairness when public law elements are involved.
Relationship with Article 13
Article 13 declares that any law that contravenes fundamental rights is void. When read with Article 12, it becomes clear that the term “law” in Article 13 includes laws made by Parliament, state legislatures, and all other authorities within the meaning of Article 12. This ensures that no organ of the State can make or enforce a law that violates fundamental rights. The combined effect of Articles 12 and 13 is therefore to create a powerful shield for individual liberty.
Contemporary Relevance
Article 12 continues to have enormous significance in modern India. The rise of public-private partnerships, privatisation, and regulatory agencies has created new questions about what counts as State action. Courts have to examine whether bodies like private universities with government recognition, private companies running public utilities, or large non-governmental organisations performing statutory functions fall within Article 12.
Judicial trend shows that if the government has deep and pervasive control or if the body performs public duties with governmental support, the courts lean towards including it within Article 12. This ensures that fundamental rights keep pace with changing forms of governance and economic activity.
Challenges and Debates
While the broad interpretation of Article 12 has protected many citizens, it also raises challenges. Public sector undertakings sometimes argue that being treated as the State puts them at a competitive disadvantage compared to private companies not bound by the same constitutional limitations. There is also debate about how far courts should go in extending Article 12 to purely private entities that only indirectly affect public life.
Some legal scholars feel that excessive expansion of the term “State” may blur the distinction between public and private spheres. Others argue that with growing privatisation and outsourcing of public functions, a wide definition is necessary to prevent fundamental rights from becoming hollow. The balance between these views continues to evolve through case law.
Key Principles Evolved by the Courts
Although Article 12 itself is short, decades of constitutional interpretation have produced a set of well-recognised principles:
-
Substance over form: The real test is not how an organisation is described but what it actually does and how much control the government has.
-
Governmental control: Financial, administrative and functional control by the government strongly indicates that the body is a State.
-
Public function test: Even if formal control is less, if the function is closely connected with governmental duties or essential public services, the body may still be covered.
-
Accountability to fundamental rights: Any authority performing duties that affect the fundamental rights of people can be required to act fairly, reasonably and without discrimination.
These principles ensure that Article 12 remains a living and flexible tool for constitutional justice.
Conclusion
Article 12 of the Indian Constitution may appear to be only a definition, but in reality it is a cornerstone of fundamental rights. By defining the term “State” broadly, it ensures that every authority exercising public power is answerable to the Constitution. From the Union and state governments to municipalities, universities, electricity boards, and public sector companies, all are bound to respect the rights of citizens.
Judicial interpretation over the years has kept this provision dynamic and responsive to new forms of governance. In a changing economy where government functions are often performed by semi-autonomous agencies or private bodies, Article 12 acts as a constitutional net ensuring that no one who wields public power can escape the discipline of fundamental rights.
In simple terms, Article 12 is the gateway through which the spirit of the Constitution enters every corner of public administration and social life. It makes fundamental rights real and enforceable, ensuring that liberty, equality, and justice remain the guiding principles of Indian democracy.
COMMENTS