‘This article is written by Diganth Raj Sehgal, a Student, School of Law, Christ University, Bangalore; and Gautam Badlani, a student at Chanakya National Law University, Patna. The author of this article has discussed the scope and extent of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and its importance.
It has been published by Rachit Garg.
Introduction
Fundamental rights are a group of rights which are guaranteed to all the citizens of the nation by the Constitution of India under Part III. These rights apply universally to all citizens residing in the nation, irrespective of their race, place of birth, religion, caste or gender. They are recognized by law as rights requiring a high degree of protection from the government and they cannot be violated by the Government. Fundamental rights cannot be enforceable against individuals and private entities. The obligation of protecting these rights lies on the government or the state or its authorities.
Most of the Fundamental rights provided to the citizens are claimed against the State and its instrumentalities and not against the private bodies. Article 12 gives an extended significance to the term ‘state’. It is very important to determine what bodies fall under the definition of a state so as to determine on whom the responsibility has to be placed.
The framers of the Constitution used the words ‘the State’ in a wider sense than what is understood in the ordinary or narrower sense. It does not merely mean the states in the Union. The word ‘includes’ in the article shows that the definition is not exhaustive and through judicial interpretations, the court has widened the scope of the Article way beyond what even the framers of Article 12 may have had in mind during the framing of the constitution.
Purpose and need to define state
Under the Constitution of India, the purpose of the state is to establish a welfare society. The framers of the Constitution were inspired by the idea of a welfare state. The concept of welfare state was developed in Germany and it envisages the creation of a state which ensures the basic economic security to all its citizens. The Constitution imposes a negative duty on the state in the form of fundamental rights and a positive duty on the state in the form of directive principles of state policy. The fundamental rights are contained in Part III of the Constitution and the directive principles are enumerated in Part IV of the Constitution.
Most of the Constitutions around the world guarantee fundamental rights only against the state, that is, the citizens can approach the courts if their rights are infringed by the state but they may not be able to seek remedy in court if their fundamental rights are violated by private individuals. This holds true even where the Constitution does not expressly state that the fundamental rights would be enforceable against the State. VN Shukla, in his book Constitution of India stated that even though under the Constitution of the United States, it is not expressly stated that the fundamental rights are guaranteed only against the state, yet the judiciary has interpreted it to mean that the fundamental rights can be enforced only against the state and not private individuals.
Similar is the case with the Indian Constitution. Thus, it becomes important and necessary to precisely and concisely define the meaning of the term ‘state’. Under the Indian Constitution, the State has been defined under Article 12, which is the opening Article of Part III of the Constitution of India which enumerates the fundamental rights.
In P.D. Shamdasani v. Central Bank of India (1951), some shares of the petitioner were sold by the Central Bank of India to recover the debt owed by the petitioner. This was challenged on the ground of being violative of Articles 19 and 31 (now omitted). The Supreme Court of India, while dismissing the petition, observed that since the rights of the petitioner were violated by a private bank, remedy cannot be sought under Article 32. Resort to Article 32 can be taken only in cases where the state infringes the right. Remedies against private parties are available under the ordinary law.
Recently, in Kaushal Kishore v. State of U.P. (2023), the Supreme Court held that fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 19 and 21 respectively can be enforced against the state as well as non-state actors.
While defining the term ‘state’, it is necessary to note that fundamental rights can be violated by the state directly as well as indirectly. In direct infringement, the government infringes fundamental rights through its legislative or other powers. In indirect infringement, the rights of the citizens are infringed upon through the agencies and officials acting on behalf of the state. Thus, it is necessary to interpret the state in an inclusive manner to protect the rights of the citizens from being infringed by any arbitrary action of the state.
The Indian Constitution also enumerates certain fundamental duties which the citizens owe to the state. The 42nd Amendment of 1976 incorporated the fundamental duties to the Indian Constitution. These duties are enumerated under Article 51A of the Indian Constitution. Some of the fundamental duties are respecting the National Flag, protecting the sovereignty and integrity of India and preserving the cultural heritage.
Meaning of State under Article 12
Article 12 of the Indian Constitution states that,
“Definition 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.”
In other words, for the purposes of Part III of the constitution, the state comprises of the following:
- Government and Parliament of India i.e the Executive and Legislature of the Union
- Government and Legislature of each State i.e the Executive and Legislature of the various States of India
- All local or other authorities within the territory of India
- All local and other authorities who are under the control of the Government of India
Key terms discussed under the article
- Government (Union and state)
- Parliament and state legislature
- Local authorities
- Other authorities
- Territory of India
- Control of the government of India
The above-mentioned terms are better explained in the following section along with relevant cases.
Government (Union and state), Parliament and State Legislature
- Parliament: The parliament comprises of the President of India, the lower house of the parliament that is the Lok Sabha as well as the upper house of the Parliament, that is the Rajya Sabha.
- Executive: It is that organ which implements the laws passed by the legislature and the policies of the government. The rise of the welfare state has tremendously increased the functions of the state, and in reality, of the executive. In common usage, people tend to identify the executive with the government. In contemporary times, there has taken place
A big increase in the power and role of the executive in every state. The executive includes the President, Governor, Cabinet Ministers, Police, bureaucrats, etc.
- Legislature: The legislature is that organ of the government which enacts the laws of the government. It is the agency which has the responsibility to formulate the will of the state and vest it with legal authority and force. In simple words, the legislature is that organ of the government which formulates laws. Legislature enjoys a very special and important in every democratic state. It is the assembly of the elected representatives of the people and represents national public opinion and power of the people.
- Government: The law-making or legislative branch and administrative or executive branch and law enforcement or judicial branch and organizations of society. Lok Sabha (the lower house) and Rajya Sabha (the upper house) form the legislative branch. Indian President is the head of the state and exercises his or her power directly or through officers subordinate to him. The Supreme Court, High Courts, and many civil, criminal and family courts at the district level form the Judiciary.
- State Legislature: The legislative body at the state level is the State Legislature. It comprises of the state legislative assembly and the state legislative council.
Local Authorities
Before understanding what a local authority is, it is important to define Authorities. According to Webster’s Dictionary; “Authority” means a person or body exercising power to command. When read under Article 12, the word authority means the power to make laws (or orders, regulations, bye-laws, notification etc.) which have the force of law. It also includes the power to enforce those laws
Local Authority: As per Section 3(31) of the General Clauses Act, 1897,
“Local Authority shall mean a municipal committee, district board, body of commissioner or other authority legally entitled to or entrusted by the Government within the control or management of a municipal or local fund.”
The term Local authority includes the following:
- Local government: According to Entry 5 of the List II of VII Schedule ‘local government’ includes a municipal corporation, improvement trust, district boards, mining settlement authorities and other local authorities for the purpose of local self-government or village administration.
- Village Panchayat: In the case of Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab, it was held that within the meaning of the term local authority, village panchayat is also included.
Test to determine Local Authorities
In Mohammad Yasin v. Town Area Committee, the Supreme Court held that to be characterized as a ‘local authority’ the authority concerned must;
- Have a separate legal existence as a corporate body
- Not be a mere government agency but must be legally an independent entity
- Function in a defined area
- Be wholly or partly, directly or indirectly, elected by the inhabitants of the area
- Enjoy a certain degree of autonomy (complete or partial)
- Be entrusted by statute with such governmental functions and duties as are usually entrusted to locally (like health, education, water, town planning, markets, transportation, etc.)
- Have the power to raise funds for the furtherance of its activities and fulfilment of its objectives by levying taxes, rates, charges or fees
Other Authorities
The term ‘other authorities’ in Article 12 has nowhere been defined. Neither in the Constitution nor in the general clauses Act, 1897 nor in any other statute of India. Therefore, its interpretation has caused a good deal of difficulty, and judicial opinion has undergone changes over time.
The functions of a government can be performed either the governmental departments and officials or through autonomous bodies which exist outside the departmental structure. Such autonomous bodies may include companies, corporations etc.
So, for the purpose of determining what ‘other authorities’ fall under the scope of State, the judiciary has given several judgements as per the facts and circumstances of different cases.
In the University of Madras v. Shanta Bai, the Madras High Court evolved the principle of ‘ejusdem generis’ i.e. of the like nature. It means that only those authorities are covered under the expression ‘other authorities’ which perform governmental or sovereign functions. Further, it cannot include persons, natural or juristic, for example, Unaided universities.
In the case of Ujjammabai v. the State of U.P., the court rejected the above restrictive scope and held that the ‘ejusdem generis’ rule could not be resorted to the in interpreting ‘other authorities’. The bodies named under Article 12 have no common genus running through them and they cannot be placed in one single category on any rational basis.
Lastly, in Rajasthan Electricity Board v. Mohan Lal, the Supreme Court held that ‘other authorities’ would include all authorities created by the constitution or statute on whom powers are conferred by law. Such statutory authority need not be engaged in performing government or sovereign functions. The court emphasized that it is immaterial that the power conferred on the body is of a commercial nature or not.
Doctrine of instrumentality of state
In the modern world, the state has a lot of functions to perform. In order to discharge its functions and duties, the state operates through certain instrumentalities. The instrumentalities also fall within the scope of the expression ‘state’ as used in Article 12.
Instrumentalities are the means through which the state discharges its functions and the doctrine of instrumentality provides that the agencies through which it discharges its functions are also to be considered embodiments of the state. For example, Article 298 of the Indian Constitution empowers the central as well as state governments to carry on trade and business. The government carries on trade through certain corporations and these corporations are called the instrumentalities of the state.
In Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India and Ors. (1979), the Supreme Court held that corporations acting as agents or instrumentalities of the government would fall within the meaning of the expression ‘other authorities’ under Article 12.
However, it is often difficult to determine whether an entity is an instrumentality of the government or not.
Test to determine instrumentality
To determine whether an entity is an agency or instrumentality, the following factors are to be taken into consideration:
- Share capital and financial assistance: If the whole of the share capital of the corporation is owned by the central or any of the state governments, then it will show that the corporation is an instrumentality of the state. The state may also provide financial assistance to the corporation.
In Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagatram (1975), the Court observed that it is not necessary for the state to provide direct financial aid to the corporation. The state may provide tax exemptions or other forms of indirect financial assistance to the corporation. Indirect financial aid will also be a relevant factor while determining whether a corporation is an instrumentality of the State or not.
- State control: If the central or any of the state governments exercises pervasive control over the entity, then it can be concluded that the corporation is an agency of the state.
- Monopoly: Certain corporations enjoy monopolies in their respective markets because the state prevents other corporations from operating in the same market. Thus, if an entity enjoys monopoly status due to the restrictions imposed by law enacted by the state, then such entity is likely to be considered an agency or instrumentality of the state.
- Functions: The nature of the functions performed by the corporation is another relevant factor. If the corporation performs or discharges functions which are largely of a public nature, then such a corporation will be considered as an instrumentality.
Territory of India
Article 1(3) of the Constitution of India states that;
“The territory of India shall comprise- (a) the territories of the States;(b) the Union territories specified in the First Schedule; and (c) such other territories as may be acquired.”
In the case of Masthan Sahib v. Chief Commissioner, the court held that the territory of India for the purposes of Article 12 means the territory of India as defined in Article 1(3).
Control of the government of India
Under Article 12, the control of the Government does not necessarily mean that the body must be under the absolute direction of the government. It merely means that the government must have some form of control over the functioning of the body. Just because a body is a statutory body, does not mean that it is ‘State’. Both statutory, as well as non-statutory bodies, can be considered as a ‘State’ if they get financial resources from the government and the government exercises a deep pervasive control over it.
For example- State includes Delhi Transport Corporation, ONGC and Electricity Boards, but does not include NCERT as neither is it substantially financed by the government nor is the government’s control pervasive.
The test laid down in the case of Ajay Hasia is not rigid and therefore if a body falls within them, then it must be considered to be a State within the meaning of Article 12. It was discussed in the case that– “whether in the light of the cumulative facts as established, the body is financially, functionally and administratively dominated by or under the control of Government. Such control must be particular to the body in question and must be pervasive.
Whether the state include the judiciary?
Article 12 of the Constitution does not specifically define ‘judiciary’. This gives the judicial authorities the power to pronounce decisions which may be contravening to the Fundamental Rights of an individual. If it was taken into the head of ‘State’, then as per the article, it would be by the obligation that the fundamental rights of the citizens should not be violated. Accordingly, the judgements pronounced by the courts cannot be challenged on the ground that they violate fundamental rights of a person. On the other hand, it has been observed that orders passed by the courts in their administrative capacity (including by the Supreme Court) have regularly been challenged as being violative of fundamental rights.
The answer to this question lies in the distinction between the judicial and non-judicial functions of the courts. When the courts perform their non-judicial functions, they fall within the definition of the ‘State’. When the courts perform their judicial functions, they would not fall within the scope of the ‘State’.
So, it can be noted that the judicial decision of a court cannot be challenged as being violative of fundamental rights. But, an administrative decision or a rule made by the judiciary can be challenged as being violative of fundamental rights, if that be supported by facts. This is because of the distinction between the judicial and non-judicial functions of the courts.
In the case of Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1967 SC 1, a 9-judge bench of the Supreme Court held that a judicial decision pronounced by a judge of competent jurisdiction in or in relation to a matter brought before him for adjudication cannot affect the fundamental rights of the citizens since what the judicial decision purports to do is to decide the controversy between the parties brought before the court and nothing more. Therefore, such a judicial decision cannot be challenged under Article 13.
Under the Constitution, the judiciary has the power to determine the scope of the fundamental rights guaranteed to citizens. In exercising this power, the Courts might make some errors. However, the errors made by the courts in interpreting the fundamental rights would not amount to infringement of the fundamental rights itself. The writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked against the decision of the courts. The appropriate remedy against judicial decisions is review or appeal before the appellate court. In case the decision is made by the Supreme Court, the aggrieved party can file a review petition or a curative petition.
In Khoday Distilleries Limited v. Registrar General, Supreme Court of India (1995), the Supreme Court held that once the final decision of the Court under Article 136 has been pronounced and the same has been upheld in the review petition, the writ jurisdiction of the Court under Article 32 cannot be invoked to challenge the validity of the order.
It is pertinent to note that only the decisions of the courts cannot be challenged on the ground of violation of fundamental rights. However, if a quasi-judicial authority or administrative authority such as a tribunal exceeds its jurisdiction or fails to exercise its jurisdiction, then the decision of the tribunal can be challenged on the ground of being violative of the fundamental rights of the aggrieved party. Thus, writ jurisdiction can be invoked to challenge the decisions of the tribunals and administrative authorities.
The position of not including judiciary within the meaning of the expression ‘state’ is justified in view of the fact that India has a single integrated judicial system. The decisions of one court can be challenged before the appellate court and the aggrieved party is not remediless against the decisions of the courts.
Landmark judgements
Rajasthan Electricity Board v. Mohan Lal and Ors (1967)
Facts
In the case of Rajasthan Electricity Board v. Mohan Lal and Ors. (1967), 14 permanent employees of the State Government were deputed to the Electricity Board. 11 employees of the Board were promoted as assistant engineers but the first respondent was not promoted. He challenged the decision of the Electricity Board of not promoting him and pleaded that the decision violated his fundamental right under Article 14 of the Constitution. He had approached the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and the High Court found the petition to be maintainable.
Issue
The issue was whether an Electricity Board constituted under the Electricity Supply Act, 1948 could be considered an ‘other authority’ under Article 12.
Contentions
The appellants had contended that the Board cannot be considered to be a state. Article 12 should be interpreted ejusdem generis and since the Board was a separate legal person in law which was established for the purpose of carrying on certain commercial activities, it could not be considered as a state. The Board was not covered under the authorities enumerated under Article 12, that is, the Board was neither a part of the Union or State Government, nor was it a part of the Union or State Legislature. The appellants also placed reliance on the Shantha Bai case.
The appellants further stated that only those bodies which perform government functions are covered by Article 12. However, the Board performed commercial activities which cannot be considered government or public functions.
Judgement
The Supreme Court had held the Electricity Board to be an ‘other authority’ falling within the ambit of Article 12. It was stated that since the Electricity Board acts as an instrumentality of the government and therefore falls within the meaning of the term ‘state’. It was immaterial that the Board carried on some activities which were commercial in nature.
The Board is a sovereign body which is entrusted with the task of generating and distributing power to the public. It was also empowered to initiate certain schemes and carry out hydraulic surveys for the purpose of fulfilling its functions. The Board could also make rules and regulations to exercise control over the electricity undertakings and thus it was held to be an ‘other authority’ under Article 12.
With respect to the application of the principle of ejusdem generis, the Court held that this principle cannot be applied while interpreting Article 12. For the application of this principle, there must be a ‘distinct genus’ or some commonality between the bodies enumerated in Article 12. Since the bodies mentioned in Article 12 have no genus, the principle of ejusdem generis could not be applied while interpreting Article 12.
Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagatram (1975)
Facts
In this case, the petitioner, who was an employee of a statutory corporation, was dismissed from service. He approached the Supreme Court pleading that the removal was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
Issue
The Court had to determine statutory corporations such as the Life Insurance Corporation, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation and Industrial Finance Corporation could be considered as ‘state’.
Judgment
The Supreme Court, by a 4:1 majority, held the three statutory corporations to be state within Article 12. The Court held that three corporations are the agencies and instrumentalities of the state. They have the power to make binding rules and assist the state in discharging its functions. The government also exercises pervasive control over these corporations.
Dissent
In his dissent, Justice Alagiriswami noted that there was no difference between the rules framed by the statutory corporations and rules made by ordinary corporations. Since the corporations do not exercise sovereign functions, they cannot be considered as a state under Article 12.
Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib (1980)
Facts
In this case, an Engineering College was managed by a society which was registered under the Jammu and Kashmir Registration of Societies Act, 1898. One of the candidates who applied for admission to the college was called for an interview. In the interview, he was asked questions about his parents and residence. These questions had no relation with the subject for which the interview was being conducted. Subsequently, the candidate challenged the interview process for being arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
Issue
The Court had to determine whether the society registered under the Act qualified to be a state within the meaning of Article 12.
Judgment
The 5-judge bench of the Supreme Court unanimously held that the society which administered the college was state within Article 12 and held that society was an instrumentality of the state. It was immaterial as to how the juristic person was brought into existence. The factor which was relevant was the purpose for which the college was constituted.
The society which administered the college was registered under a statute. The government exercised control over the functioning of the society. Thus, the society was an agency of the government.
Zee Telefilms v. Union of India and Ors. (2005)
Facts
In this case, the issue was whether the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI), a society registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975 is a state or not.
Contentions
The petitioner had pleaded that BCCI should be considered a state. The BCCI enjoys monopoly control over cricket, which is a prominent sport in India. The team selected by BCCI is termed as Indian team which wears the Indian national flag and is considered to be the representative of the nation in international tournaments. The BCCI can also debar cricketers from playing in the exercise of its disciplinary powers. The petitioner contended that since BCCI can affect the fundamental rights of the players, who are considered to be the nation’s representatives, it should be deemed to be a State within Article 12.
Judgement
The Supreme Court observed that the government neither owns a substantial part of BCCI nor does it exercise any deep or pervasive control over its management and affairs. BCCI was not established by any statute and it does not function as an agency of the government.
The Court held that the BCCI cannot be considered as a state under Article 12. Thus, if BCCI infringes the fundamental rights of any person, then a writ petition under Article 32 will not be maintainable as Article 32 can be invoked only if the state infringes the fundamental rights of any person. An action against the BCCI for the infringement of the fundamental rights would lie under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Jitarani Udgata v. Union of India (2021)
Facts and issue
In this case, the petitioner was an employee of the Gems and Jewellery Export Promotion Council (GJEPC) and her service was terminated by the Council. The petitioner challenged the termination notice on the ground of being violative of fundamental rights.
The issue before the Delhi High Court was whether GJEPC could be considered a State under Article 12.
Judgment
The Court observed that in modern times, the concept of welfare state has evolved to such an extent that almost every corporation and institution is subjected to the control of the state. Thus, while determining whether an institution or corporation can be considered as an instrumentality of the State, it is necessary to analyse whether the state exercises pervasive control over the corporation. Financial aid alone cannot be conclusive evidence of state control. In order to be considered as an agency of the state, the corporation must receive substantial financial aid and should be subjected to unusual state control.
If the government provides such substantial financial aid to the institution that is sufficient to meet almost all of the institution’s expenditure, then it can be concluded that the institution is a State under Article 12.
The Court observed that GJEPC is merely an association of the exporters of gems and jewellery. It only places the collective problems of the exporters before the government. Thus, the Council does not play any role in the policy decisions of the government.
Lastly, the Court observed that even though the government provides certain financial assistance to the Council, the aid is only granted for certain specific purposes. The government is responsible to monitor that the funds are only utilised for the purposes for which they are granted. Merely because the government has the power to inspect the financial books of the Council, it cannot be concluded that the government exercises pervasive control over the functioning of the Council.
Thus, the Court held that GJEPC is not a State within the purview of Article 12 and dismissed the petition.
Shiny George Ambat v. Union of India (2023)
Facts
In this case, the petitioner was the Chief Finance Officer of the Indian Institute of Management (IIM), Kozhikode. He was dismissed from service because the institution administration found his performance to be unsatisfactory. Subsequently, the petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of the Kerala High Court under Article 226 and challenged the decision of IIM Kozhikode.
Issue
The issue before the Kerala High Court was whether IIM Kozhikode could be considered as an instrumentality of the State. The Court had to determine whether the writ petition under Article 226 was maintainable.
Judgment
The Court observed that IIM Kozhikode is an autonomous body which is established under the Indian Institutes of Management Act, 2007. The institution neither enjoyed monopoly status nor was it the creation of any statute. The institution was earlier registered as a society and the 2007 Act merely brought the functioning of society under the scope of the Act.
The Central Government exercises no effective control over the internal management of the institute. Even though the institute receives some financial aid from the Government, it cannot be termed substantial financial assistance, and the majority of the expenses of the institution are met by its own revenues.
Lastly, the Court observed that there were no statutory rules prescribed by the government to regulate the conduct of the employees of the institution. The services of the employees were not regulated by the State. Even though the institution is required to present its accounts to the Auditor and Controller General of India and to obtain the Government’s prior approval before alienating any immovable property, the same could be regarded as a deep control by the state.
The High Court thus concluded that IIM Kozhikode is not an instrumentality of the state and this does not fall within the purview of Article 12. The writ petition was dismissed by the Court.
What is ejusdem generis
Ejusdem generis is a constitutional law principle which implies ‘of the same kind’. It means that when general words are followed by specific words, the general words should be interpreted to include only such items and things as are enumerated by the specific words. However, if the court finds that the legislator intended to give a wider meaning to the statute, then it may give a broader interpretation to the general words.
Ejusdem generis is a principle of interpretation which is recognized in many jurisdictions. Article 12 of the Indian Constitution has also been interpreted in light of this principle.
In the English case of Knott v. Blackburn (1944), the Vagrancy Act, 1824 provided that if a person is found, for any unlawful purpose, in any ‘dwelling house, warehouse, coach-house, stable or outhouse or in any enclosed yard, garden or area, then such a person would be deemed to be a rogue under the law. The issue came before the King’s Bench whether railway siding would fall under the provisions of the Act. The Court applied the principle of ejusdem generis and held that the provision would only apply to places which were similar to a garden or a yard.
The issue of applicability of the ejusdem generis principle to Article 12 came before the judiciary in the case of Ujjam Bai v. State of U.P. (1961). The petitioners stated that the expression ‘other authorities’ is an ordinary expression which succeeds specific words such as the central and state legislatures and the union and state executive. Thus, the expression ‘other authorities’ should be interpreted in light of the principle of ejusdem generis. However, Justice Ayyangar noted that there was no commonality between the authorities referred to under Article 12.
Thus, the principle of ejusdem generis could not be applied to Article 12. The expression ‘other authority’ was interpreted in a wide sense and the Supreme Court held that it was a residuary expression which would include all the instrumentalities established by the State for the purpose of discharging its functions and implementing the laws enacted by it.
What is ejusdem generis
Ejusdem generis is a constitutional law principle which implies ‘of the same kind’. It means that when general words are followed by specific words, the general words should be interpreted to include only such items and things as are enumerated by the specific words. However, if the court finds that the legislator intended to give a wider meaning to the statute, then it may give a broader interpretation to the general words.
Ejusdem generis is a principle of interpretation which is recognized in many jurisdictions. Article 12 of the Indian Constitution has also been interpreted in light of this principle.
In the English case of Knott v. Blackburn (1944), the Vagrancy Act, 1824 provided that if a person is found, for any unlawful purpose, in any ‘dwelling house, warehouse, coach-house, stable or outhouse or in any enclosed yard, garden or area, then such a person would be deemed to be a rogue under the law. The issue came before the King’s Bench whether railway siding would fall under the provisions of the Act. The Court applied the principle of ejusdem generis and held that the provision would only apply to places which were similar to a garden or a yard.
The issue of applicability of the ejusdem generis principle to Article 12 came before the judiciary in the case of Ujjam Bai v. State of U.P. (1961). The petitioners stated that the expression ‘other authorities’ is an ordinary expression which succeeds specific words such as the central and state legislatures and the union and state executive. Thus, the expression ‘other authorities’ should be interpreted in light of the principle of ejusdem generis. However, Justice Ayyangar noted that there was no commonality between the authorities referred to under Article 12.
Thus, the principle of ejusdem generis could not be applied to Article 12. The expression ‘other authority’ was interpreted in a wide sense and the Supreme Court held that it was a residuary expression which would include all the instrumentalities established by the State for the purpose of discharging its functions and implementing the laws enacted by it.
Conclusion
The Constitution of India not only gives fundamental right to the citizens but also imposes the duty on the state to ensure that the fundamental rights are protected. The court through its interpretations has widened the scope of the term State to include a variety of statutory and non-statutory bodies under its umbrella.
The need to determine what falls within the meaning of state is, to assign the party on whom the duty to implement such right is placed upon. Not only that, the definition of state under Article 12 has several words which may not have definite meanings, words such as local authorities, control of government, other authorities, etc. and as seen in the above sections, the courts have, through the course of their judgements, described the extent of the article by laying down a test and discussing the meaning of the terms.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
Does the definition of state under Article 12 apply to other Articles of the Constitution as well?
It is pertinent to note that Article 12 defines the state for the purpose of the enforcement of fundamental rights. Thus, it is necessary to interpret the expression liberally to ensure maximum protection for fundamental rights. However, the same liberal interpretation of the state could not be extended to other Articles of the Constitution. Thus, the expression ‘state’ used outside Article 12 may not be interpreted as liberally and inclusively as in the case of Article 12.
References
Students of Lawsikho courses regularly produce writing assignments and work on practical exercises as a part of their coursework and develop themselves in real-life practical skills.
LawSikho has created a telegram group for exchanging legal knowledge, referrals, and various opportunities. You can click on this link and join:
Follow us on Instagram and subscribe to our YouTube channel for more amazing legal content.
