This article is written by Monesh Mehndiratta. The present article provides a detailed analysis of the landmark judgment in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Radhey Shyam Rai (2009). It provides the background of the case, issues, judgment of the court, opinion of judges, and the law applied. It further provides a critical analysis of the case at hand and explains Article 12 of the Constitution and landmark cases related to it.  

It has been published by Rachit Garg.

Table of Contents

Introduction

“State”—What comes to mind when you hear this term?

Download Now

Many may think about the country, government, or components of government. However, this term is not limited to the country and government. Its ambit has been broadened with time. It is also possible that a society, company, or organisation may fall under the purview of the “State” because of certain factors. Now, this discourse may lead some to wonder how is that possible. How can a body owned by a person or a group be called a “State”’? What are the deciding factors?

Well, you need not worry as the present article will answer all such questions. 

The definition of “State” is given under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has evolved the law at this point and widened the scope of the definition of “State”. It has laid down multiple tests and factors to determine whether a corporation or body is a “State” or not. The present article discusses and analyses the case of State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. v. Radhey Shyam Rai (2009), where these factors and tests laid down in different cases were discussed to determine whether the body in question in this case is a “State” as per Article 12 or not. The article further explains Article 12 of the Constitution and other landmark judgments related to the said provision. 

Details of the case

Name of the case

State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. v. Radhey Shyam Rai

Citation

(2009) 3 SCALE 754, 2009 (77) AIC 202, 2009 (2) AWC 1771 (SC), 2009 (2) CCC 149, 2009 (2) CTC 372, 2009 INSC 337, (2009) 5 SCC 577, (2009) 5 SCR 143, 2011 (1) SCT 203 (SC), 2011 (3) SLJ 143 (SC)

Case type

Civil Appeal

Date of judgment

06.03.2009

Name of the appellants

State of UP and another 

Name of the respondent

Radhey Shyam Rai

Bench

Justice Cyriac Joseph and Justice S.B. Sinha

Name of the court

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India

Laws involved

Article 12 of the Constitution of India and Societies Registration Act, 1860. 

Article 12 of the Constitution of India

Article 12 belongs to Part III of the Indian Constitution. Though fundamental rights are enshrined in Part III, this Article does not guarantee any such right. In fact, it is a gateway provision to this Part which defines the term “State” for the different provisions concerning fundamental rights enshrined in Articles 14 to 32. It is presumed that fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution are available against the state, which has the duty to protect the fundamental rights of the people, and when we talk about the state, most people understand the term as including government but other authorities can also fall under its ambit if the characteristics are satisfied. Thus, it was necessary to define the term ‘state’.

For the purpose of Part III, Article 12 defines the term “State” to include the following:

  • Government and Parliament of India, which means the executive and legislative organs of the Union government;
  • Government and legislature of each state, which means the executive and legislative organs of all state governments;
  • All local authorities within the country or under the control of the Government, such as panchayats, municipalities, district boards, etc.; and
  • All other authorities within the country or under the control of the Government, such as SAIL, LIC, and ONGC, to name a few. 

Therefore, the term “State” has been defined in a wider sense under the Indian Constitution and includes within its ambit all its organs and agencies whether they are at the national, state, or local level. The Supreme Court has further deliberated on this definition through a string of landmark judgments over the years. For instance, in Rajasthan State Electricity Board, Jaipur v. Mohan Lal & Ors. (1967), the court held that the term “authority” used in Article 12 of the Constitution includes authorities that are created by a statute and empowered to carry on the governmental and quasi-governmental functions in the country. Further, in the case of Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagatram (1975), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that Life Insurance Corporation, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation, and International Finance Corporation come within the meaning of “State” under Article 12 because they perform functions that are similar to those of government. 

More landmark decisions on Article 12 are discussed later in the article.

Facts of the Case

The Uttar Pradesh Ganna Kisan Sansthan is a registered society under the Society Registration Act, 1860, established by a Government Order in 1975. Prior to its establishment, all its functions were performed by the Cane Development Department. Similarly, the training centres at Shahjahanpur, Muzaffarnagar,  and Gorakhpur were also managed by the Cane Development Department. Later on, their management was transferred to the Sansthan whereas the financial expenses were to be met by the UP Sahkari Ganna Samiti Sangh and Sakkar Vishesh Nidhi. 

On the other hand, the respondent, Radhey Shyam Rai, was appointed as the Computer Officer or Data Processing Officer of the Sansthan. However, its Governing Council, in a meeting, decided to abolish the posts and cancel the appointments made therein. As a result, the respondent’s employment was terminated. Aggrieved by such a termination order, he filed a writ petition before the Allahabad High Court. 

The writ petition came before a Division Bench for consideration wherein the Bench observed a prior ruling by another Division Bench of the High Court, which suggested that appellant no. 2, i.e., the Uttar Pradesh Ganna Kisan Sansthan, did not qualify as “State” as per the provisions of Article 12 of the Constitution. The matter was then referred to a Full Bench of the High Court which held the opposite view. Aggrieved by the decision of the High Court, a special leave petition under Article 136 was filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India by the Sansthan. 

Issues involved in the case 

  • Whether the Sansthan falls under the ambit of “State” under Article 12 of the Constitution?

Contentions of the parties 

The decision of the Division Bench of the High Court was referred to its Full Bench wherein the Sansthan was the respondent and the person who filed the writ petition was the petitioner. However, before the Supreme Court, Sansthan was the appellant. Following are the arguments presented by both parties before the Full Bench of the High Court, which were later considered by the Apex Court while deciding the issue.

Arguments by petitioner

The petitioner argued before the High Court that, according to the functions to be performed by the Sansthan, it is a “State” under Article 12 of the Constitution. It was contended by the petitioner that the government, in order to manage and streamline the training conducted in training centres, constituted various committees consisting of various officers of the government. Moreover, the training centres were transferred to the Sansthan for their management while the expenses were managed by the Uttar Pradesh Sahkari Ganna Samiti Sangh and Sakkar Vishesh Nidhi. 

It was further submitted that the state has deep and pervasive control over the Sansthan and it was dominated by the Government Council and the Minister of Cane Development and Sugar Industries was its ex-officio Chairman. The petitioner drew the attention of the Court to the memorandum of association of the Sansthan, according to which the Government decided to revise the payment scales of the employees of Sansthan, indicating that the Sansthan was controlled and managed by the government. According to the petitioner, the Sansthan falls within the purview of “State” for the following reasons:

  • 90% of members in the governing council of the Sansthan are officers or members of the state government. 
  • The expenses and share capital of the Sansthan are met from the state budget. 
  • The Sansthan imparts education to cane growers which the Cane Department of the state did earlier. 
  • The state Government has a deep and pervasive role in the daily affairs of the Sansthan, which has been established for the growth of the agriculture sector in the state. 

Thus, due to the above-mentioned reasons and relying on the cases of Raman Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India & Ors. (1979), Mysore Paper Mills Ltd. v. Mysore Paper Mills Officers Association & Anr. (2002) and other cases in this regard, the petitioner argued that the Sansthan fulfilled the test of determining whether a body or authority is a State. Hence, a writ of certiorari is maintainable against the Sansthan. 

Arguments by respondents

The respondents (Uttar Pradesh Ganna Kisan Sansthan), relying on the judgment of Sukhdev Singh & Ors. v. Bhagatram Sardar Singh Raghuvanshi (1975), argued the question is that the authority or body in question is carrying on the business for whose benefit. According to the respondents, the Sansthan was established to run and maintain the training centres for the benefit of cane growers and to impart practical knowledge regarding the cultivation and management of cane to the people. It was further submitted that the Memorandum of Association (MOA) was signed by the Cane Commissioner of the state, Chairman of State Sugar Corporation Limited, Nominee of State Sugar Mills Association, Director of National Sugar Institute, Kanpur, etc. 

The Governing Council of the Sansthan has the power to manage the affairs of the Sansthan, and its expenses, formulate principles and policies related to employees, conditions of service, etc. It also maintains proper accounts and records of annual income and expenditure paid by the Sansthan. The government only has the power to call for information and there is no provision regarding directions to be made by the government. This clearly indicates that the Sansthan is an independent body and there is no control of government on the same. 

Any issue with respect to the pay structure of the employees is fixed by the Sansthan without any approval of the state government. Moreover, the employees are governed by the Uttar Pradesh Ganna Kisan Sansthan Service Rules. It was further contended by the respondent that the state government has no role to play in the Sansthan and does not interfere with its functioning administratively. For financial assistance from the government, it was submitted that on the establishment of the Sansthan, the government had sanctioned to grant half of the total expenditure, and thus, financial assistance was given from the Sugar Fund Committee. 

Judgment of the High Court 

The Allahabad High Court opined that the writ of certiorari will lie against any corporation or authority only when it falls within the meaning of “authority” under Article 226 of the Constitution. It also carved out various guidelines from the decisions of the Supreme Court in this regard:

  • The managing body of the corporation consists of officers or members of the government;
  • The government has a deep and pervasive role in the corporation;
  • The society or corporation carries on the functions important to the public; and 
  • The government provides financial aid to such societies or corporations.

The court observed that the governor of the state in the present case was empowered to issue directives to the society regarding the security of the state and matters related to public interest. Also, 80-90% of the Sansthan’s expenditure was released by the government, and the Director and Account Officer of the Sansthan are government officers, clearly establishing the fact that the government plays a crucial role in the affairs of the Sansthan. The court held that the Sansthan is a state’s instrumentality and falls within the meaning of “person” or “authority” under Article 226 of the Constitution. Thus, the Sansthan comes within the ambit of “State” as defined under Article 12 of the Constitution. 

Judgment of the Supreme Court

Ratio decidendi

The Court opined that with a large number of bodies coming up to exercise public functions, the law on the meaning of “State” had developed rapidly from the case of Rajasthan Electricity Board to the case of Pradeep Kumar Biswas. The Court mentioned that the judgment of P.K. Ramachandra Iyer & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (1984) where the Court held that the Indian Council for Agricultural Research (ICAR) is “State” and comes within the ambit of Article 12 was distinguished in another judgment viz., Chander Mohan Khanna v. National Council of Educational Research and Training & Ors. (1991). 

The Supreme Court addressed the various tests that evolved over the years and further observed that no standard can be set to determine whether a body fulfils the requirement of law to come within the meaning of “State”. The Court considered the existing principles before determining whether the Sansthan in the present case falls within the ambit of “State”.

The Apex Court reiterated that the functions of the body in question are a major factor when it comes to deciding the issue at hand. It was observed that the Sansthan performed those functions which were earlier performed by the government. The main aim of establishing training institutes was to provide scientific ways of cultivation for sugarcane and management of its production, which is, no doubt, a function of the state. The State transferred its functions to the Sansthan along with its management and assets for it to take over the government’s functions. It also sanctioned a budget to cover 50% of its expenses while the other half was financed by the mills belonging to the State Sugar Corporation, Indian Mill Association, and Uttar Pradesh Sugarcane Cooperative Federation. 

The Court also observed that the test laid down by the court in the cases of R.D. Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India (1979) and Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi & Ors. (1980), among others were fulfilled by the Sansthan in the present case. 

Obiter dicta

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India upheld the decision of the Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court of declaring the Sansthan as a “State” under Article 12 of the Constitution. The Apex Court held that the state government had a deep and pervasive role in the affairs of the Sansthan since the Cane Commissioner was directly involved. Moreover, the majority of the members of its Governing Council were government officers. The body was also required to follow all the directions issued by the government and play a vital role in carrying out the functions of the Sansthan.

Critical analysis of the case

The present case dealt with the issue of whether the Sansthan falls under the ambit of “state” according to Article 12 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court in this case examined the tests laid down to determine whether a body is an authority or not and, hence, covered under Article 12. These tests were laid down in different cases by the courts and have evolved from time to time. It was also observed that there is no hard and fast rule to determine factors or tests that could provide whether a particular body is covered under the definition of “state”. This depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. Such cases also help in analysing the position of law already laid down by the courts in previous cases. 

With the advent of technology and modernisation, there has been an increase in the number of organisations being established to help the public. These organisations seek financial assistance from the state or private sponsors. With the increase in such organisations and bodies, there has been an increase in the complexities of the administration of the country. It becomes necessary to determine whether the newly established organisations are a branch of government authorities and covered under the ambit of “state” or not as other rules and regulations will be applicable to them accordingly. If these bodies are covered under the ambit of “state”, they will have to abide by all the rules laid down by the government and courts and also ensure that they do not violate fundamental rights and other rights of people or else there will be consequences. Thus, it becomes necessary to determine and analyse the issue of whether the established body can be included under Article 12. 

The Supreme Court in this case also reiterated the previous landmark cases wherein the law was developed in this regard. However, the same question arises again and again in similar cases. This indicates that every case is unique in its own sense and the issues have to be decided based on the current situation. The court rightly pointed out that there is no set rule to determine such issues. It cannot be decided by a single factor or criteria. If the body in question fulfils one criterion, it does not necessarily mean that it is covered under Article 12. Multiple factors together have to be taken into consideration to determine the same. The court also stated in various cases that if one criterion is fulfilled, does not mean that the body in question will have to be included in the ambit of ‘state’ but multiple factors have to be together taken into consideration to determine the issue. The Court had the right approach of revisiting the previous cases which also indicates that the court tried to determine and analyse whether the tests already laid down in those cases can be applied to this case or not. 

It is better if the courts do the same in such cases in future and determine whether the law already laid down is applicable to that case or not or whether it has become obsolete in the current facts and circumstances of the case. If it is applicable, the court must decide the issue but if it is not, it is the task of the judiciary to interpret the law and devise the factors to finally determine the issues in a case. The Indian judicial system has been working tirelessly to devise new rules, interpret the laws from time to time and deliver justice in the favour of society. This has also strengthened people’s trust in the judiciary and courts of our country. 

Landmark cases in Article 12

Rajasthan State Electricity Board v. Mohanlal & Ors. (1967)

Facts of the case

The appellant in this case was the Rajasthan Electricity Board. Prior to its establishment, the supply of electricity was controlled by the Electrical and Mechanical Department of the State government. The respondents were the employees of the Department and were placed on the Board on its constitution. It was also directed that the Board has to frame its own service conditions and the employees, who were transferred from the department, have to either accept the conditions or obtain relief from their employment. However, no new grades and service conditions were framed by the Board. 

The respondent, Mohanlal was deputed and later reverted to the Board from the Public Works Department as Foreman. He, however, claimed that he was entitled to be promoted to Assistant Engineer, like other respondents. The Board and the state government did not accept his request causing him to file a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution in the Rajasthan High Court on the ground that the Board violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The court quashed the order of promotion of other respondents and asked the Board to make promotions again. Aggrieved by the order, the Board filed an appeal in the Supreme Court. 

Issues involved in the case

  • Whether the board is a “State” under Article 12 of the Constitution?
  • Whether the decision of the High Court is correct?

Judgment of the court

On the issue of whether the Board is a State or not, it was argued that the Board is not a State as it is a body having its own separate existence and has been established mainly to carry on the business of commercial activities. The Supreme Court opined that the High Court made an error while applying the rule of ejusdem generis. It was held that the dictionary meaning of the term “authority” is very wide and includes bodies created by a statute to perform governmental and quasi-governmental functions. 

Thus, the Board was held to be an authority within the meaning of “State” under Article 12 since it had the power to issue directions, control the generation and supply of electricity, make, alter, and amend schemes under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, and perform governmental functions. It was further held that the Board violated Article 14 of the Constitution in not considering the respondent for promotion like other respondents. Thus, the court overruled the judgement in the case of University of Madras v. Shanta bai (1953).

Raman Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India (1979)

Facts of the case

The respondent, in this case, was a body constituted under the International Airport Authority Act, 1971. A notice was issued to invite tenders to put up and run a second-class restaurant and snack bars at the Bombay Airport. Tenders were invited from the registered 2nd class hoteliers with a minimum of 5 years of experience in running a 2nd class restaurant and 3 years of experience for snack bars. It was provided that the Airport Director will accept the tenders and can also reject the tenders without any reason. Six tenders were received by the Director, out of which only one was complete. However, the person who filed the complete tender only had the experience of running canteens and was, thus, asked to present evidence that he was a registered second-class hotelier.

On receiving his reply, the tender was accepted. However, a suit was filed challenging the decision of the Airport Director to accept tenders in violation of the notice. Meanwhile, an injunction was passed against the respondent, restraining them from proceeding further with the tender. The possession of sites was handed over to the person whose tender was accepted and he proceeded with preparations to start the business of snack bars. However, the site for the restaurant was not available as it was still in the possession of the person, who was running a restaurant and snack bar under a previous contract and did not vacate the place even after the contract ended. 

The writ filed by the appellant in the Bombay High Court challenging the decision of the Airport Director was rejected and thereafter, the appellant preferred to appeal to the Division Bench, which was also rejected. The appellant, finally, filed a petition for special leave to appeal before the Supreme Court. 

Issues involved in the case

  • Whether the acceptance of tender by the Airport Director is against the terms and conditions of notice?
  • Whether the International Airport Authority comes within the purview of “State” under Article 12 of the Constitution?

Judgment of the court

While deciding the issue, the Court observed that it was necessary to determine whether the respondent is a State or not as the remedy for violating fundamental rights can only be claimed against the State. The Court further observed that several factors have to be considered while determining whether the body or corporation falls within the meaning of State or not and whether it is an agency or instrumentality of government. The factors are:

  • Any financial assistance given by the state,
  • Magnitude of assistance,
  • Whether the assistance given by the state is usual or extraordinary,
  • Whether the body is controlled and managed by the state,
  • Nature and extent of control,
  • Whether the body enjoys monopoly status protected by the state, and
  • Whether the functions performed by the body or corporation are public functions. 

However, this is not exhaustive because of complexities in management and administration in the relations between corporations and government. It was also directed that the courts will have to observe the cumulative effects of various factors to determine the issue. 

In view of the above factors, the International Airport Authority was held to be an “authority” under Article 12 and, thus, within the purview of the “State”. The acceptance of tender by the Airport Director was held to be violative of Article 14 as the person whose tender was accepted did not fulfil the eligibility criteria. There would have been a lot of people who did not meet the eligibility criteria but wanted to file a tender and the appellant himself claimed to be one. 

Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi & Ors. (1980)

Facts of the case

The writ petition in this case was filed challenging the validity of admissions in the Regional Engineering College, Srinagar. This is one among the 15 colleges that are sponsored by the Union government. Its administration and management are regulated by a society registered under the Jammu and Kashmir Registration of Societies Act, 1898. The admission procedure laid down by the Board of Governors provided that admissions were to be given based on merit, and examined by a written test along with viva. The division of marks was as follows:

  • 100 marks written test testing English, physics, chemistry, and mathematics,
  • 50 marks for the viva divided as:
    • 15 marks for general knowledge and awareness.
    • 15 marks for understanding a specific phenomenon.
    • 10 marks for extra-curricular activities.
    • 10 marks for general personality traits.

It was also decided that out of 250 seats, 50% was to be reserved for candidates from the state of Jammu and Kashmir, while the remaining 50% was for candidates belonging to other states out of which 15 seats were to be reserved for particular categories of students. The reservation of seats for the students belonging to the state of Jammu and Kashmir was according to the government orders for admission to technical institutes. The petitioners applied for admission to the colleges and appeared in the written examination. Thereafter, they were called for viva before a committee consisting of three people. 

M&A

The petitioners contended that their viva lasted for 2-3 minutes each and only formal questions were asked related to residence, parentage, etc., and no questions of merit were asked. When the results were announced, the petitioners found that they scored high marks on the written test but were denied admission due to low marks in viva, while candidates having low marks on the written test had high marks in viva and were given admission. The petitioners then challenged the validity of these admissions in the court. 

Issues involved in the case

  • Whether the society managing and running the college come within the purview of “authority” under Article 12?
  • Whether the admissions to the college are valid?

Judgment of the Court

The respondents argued that the society running and managing the college is not a creation of any statute. It is a registered society and thus, not an “authority” under Article 12, rendering the writ as not maintainable against it. The Court reiterated the test laid down in the case of Raman Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India (1979) and ruled that the corporation will be the instrumentality of the government if the majority of the following conditions are satisfied: 

  • Its entire share capital is held by the government,
  • It is financially aided by the state,
  • It enjoys monopoly status,
  • There is deep and pervasive control of the state, and
  • The functions of the corporation are closely related to governmental functions
  • If a department of government is transferred to the corporation.

The Court further pointed out that it was not important whether a corporation is created by or under a statute. The question is whether it is an agency or an instrumentality of the government. The Court held that, according to the memorandum of association of the society and its rules, it is an ‘authority’. Moreover, it consists of members appointed by the state and central government. It was also aided by the state and all the rules had to be approved by the central and state government. Thus, the state has deep and pervasive control over its affairs. Therefore, it is an agency or instrumentality of state and central government and is an “authority” according to Article 12 of the Constitution. 

With respect to the merits of admission, the Court held that, if the students are denied admission based on viva which lasted for 2-3 minutes wherein no questions were asked related to the relevant factors, it is vitiated and arbitrary. However, the Court further held that it cannot set aside the selection made for the academic year in question, but cautioned the state government and society for future admissions. The oral round will be deemed reasonable and non-arbitrary if the marks given in the oral interview do not exceed 15% of the total marks, relevant questions were asked in the interview, and candidates were interviewed properly. The Court also suggested that it is desirable to record the oral interview to eliminate unnecessary disputes and controversies. 

Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology (2002)

Facts of the case

This case is based on the case of Sabhajit Tewary v. Union of India (1975), wherein a junior stenographer was denied the claim of parity in remuneration, stating that the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) is not an “authority” under Article 12. A writ petition was filed in the Calcutta High Court by the respondent challenging their termination. The High Court refused the writ on the ground that it was not maintainable which led to an appeal before the Supreme Court of India.

Issues involved in the case

  • Whether CSIR comes within the definition of “State” under Article 12 of the Constitution?

Judgment of the court

The Court observed that the test laid down in the case of Ajay Hasia is not rigid in nature. All the factors have to be considered cumulatively and it must be established that the body in question is financially, administratively, and functionally controlled by the government. If the control is pervasive, the body will come under Article 12. However, if the control is regulatory, the body is not a state. 

The Court held that CSIR comes within Article 12 and gave the following reasons:

  • It was established by the Department of Commerce of the central government to promote the growth of the industry. 
  • It is managed and controlled by the members of the government. 
  • The governing body is constituted of the Director General, directors of two national laboratories, two eminent scientists, etc. 
  • The governing body has the power to amend, frame, appeal, or repeal the bylaws of CSIR with the approval of the government. 
  • It is funded by the government. 

Thus, the Court held that CSIR comes within the definition of “State” under Article 12 and the decision in the case of Sabhajit Tewary was overruled.

Virendra Kumar Srivastava v. Uttar Pradesh Rajya Karmachari Kalyan Nigam and Anr. (2005)

Facts of the case

The petitioner in this case filed a writ petition before the Allahabad High Court, challenging his termination from the services in the stores of Uttar Pradesh Rajya Karmachari Kalyan Nigam (respondent). However, the High Court rejected the writ on the ground that it was not maintainable since the respondent did not come within the meaning of “State” under Article 12. Hence, an appeal was filed by the petitioner before the Supreme Court. 

Issues involved in the case

  • Whether the Uttar Pradesh Rajya Karmachari Kalyan Nigam come within the purview of the “State” under Article 12?

Judgment of the Court

The Supreme Court held that the respondent in the present case comes within Article 12 as it is deeply and pervasively controlled by the state with the control being not merely regulatory. This is because it caters to the needs of the employees of the government. The ex-officio members of the respondent are the top executives of governmental departments. Moreover, its affairs are supervised and controlled by the various departments of the state. Thus, it fulfils multiple tests to determine whether it comes within the meaning of “State” and falls under the purview of Article 12 of the Constitution.

Critical analysis of the case

The present case dealt with the issue of whether the Sansthan falls under the ambit of ‘state’ according to Article 12 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court in this case examined the tests laid down to determine whether a body is an authority or not and hence, covered under Article 12. These tests were laid down in different cases by the courts and have evolved from time to time. It was also observed that there is no hard and fast rule to determine factors or tests that could provide whether a particular body is covered under the definition of ‘state’. This depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. Such cases also help in analysing the position of law already laid down by the courts in previous cases. With the advent of technology and modernisation, there has been an increase in the number of organisations being established to help the public. These organisations seek financial assistance from the state or private sponsors. With the increase in such organisations and bodies, there has been an increase in the complexities of the administration of the country. It becomes necessary to determine whether the newly established organisations are a branch of government authorities and covered under the ambit of ‘state’ or not as other rules and regulations will be applicable to them accordingly. If these bodies are covered under the ambit of ‘state’, they will have to abide by all the rules laid down by the government and courts and also ensure that they do not violate fundamental rights and other rights of people or else there will be consequences. Thus, it becomes necessary to determine and analyse the issue of whether the established body can be included under Article 12. 

The Supreme Court in the present case also reiterated the previous landmark cases wherein the law was developed in this regard. However, the same question arises again and again in similar cases. This indicates that every case is unique in its own sense and the issues have to be decided based on the current situation. The court rightly pointed out that there is no set rule to determine such issues. The court also stated in various cases that if one criterion is fulfilled, doesn’t mean that the body in question will have to be included in the ambit of ‘state’ but multiple factors together have to be taken into consideration to determine the issue. The Court had the right approach of revisiting the previous cases which also indicates that the court tried to determine and analyse whether the tests already laid down in those cases can be applied to this case or not. 

In my opinion, the courts must do the same in such cases in future and determine whether the law already laid down is applicable to that case or not or whether it has become obsolete in the current facts and circumstances of the case. If it is applicable, the court must decide the issue but if it is not, it is the task of the judiciary to interpret the law and devise the factors to finally determine the issues in a case. The Indian judicial system has been working tirelessly to devise new rules interpret the laws from time to time and deliver justice in the favour of society. This has also strengthened people’s trust in the judiciary and courts of our country.

Conclusion

With time, there has been an increase in the number of organisations and authorities in the country, mostly aimed at performing functions of public importance. Some of these are controlled and aided by the central or state government. This has also increased the complexities regarding administration and relations between the authorities and/or organisations and the government. Now, whenever there is any dispute involving such authority or organisation, the primary concern is whether they fall under the ambit of “State” as defined in Article 12 of the Constitution. No doubt our Constitution is the lengthiest written constitution in the world. It covers almost every aspect of law and provides a detailed scheme of laws to the people. It has also defined various terms like ‘law’ under Article 13, ‘state’ under Article 12 etc. The makers have made the task of the judiciary to interpret the laws easy. The scope of these terms has been widened which has increased the number of issues to be determined by the courts. 

The law of the issue at hand was made clear in various cases and multiple tests were laid down by the Supreme Court in this regard. However, the disparity still exists. The case discussed in this article is one such case where the principles laid down with respect to Article 12 were revisited by the Supreme Court. The Apex Court observed that there can be no hard and fast rule to determine whether a particular body comes within the purview of the “State”. This has to be determined depending on the facts and circumstances of each case. Every case is different from others and so if a body was declared to come within the ambit of “State”, it does not mean that in every upcoming case, the decision would be the same. The Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Radhe Shyam Rai (2009) reiterated previous landmark cases and cleared doubts with respect to the applicability of Article 12.  

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Who represented Radhe Shyam Rai in the present case?

Advocate Akhilesh Kalra represented Radhe Shyam Rai in the above case. 

Who represented Uttar Pradesh Ganna Kisan Sansthan in the present case?

The Sansthan was represented by advocates Ravi Prakash Mehrotra and Garvesh Kabra, etc. 

Does the BCCI fall under Article 12?

In the case of Zee Telefilms Ltd & Anr v. Union of India & Ors. (2005), the Supreme Court applied the test laid down in the case of Pradeep Kumar Biswas and held that BCCI does not come within the purview of Article 12 as it is not controlled, financed, and administered by the government. 

Is the judiciary a part of the ‘state’ under Article 12 of the Constitution?

Yes, it is. According to Article 12, the government and its organs are a part of the ‘state’. However, for the judiciary, consideration has to be placed on judicial and non-judicial functions. If the court exercises non-judicial functions like administrative or legislative functions, then it falls under the ambit of ‘state’ but it will not be covered under Article 12 if it exercises judicial functions. 

What is the difference between Articles 12 and 13 of the Constitution?

Article 12 of the Constitution gives the definition of the term ‘state’ while Article 13 provides the definition of the term ‘Law’. 

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:

https://t.me/lawyerscommunity

Follow us on Instagram and subscribe to our YouTube channel for more amazing legal content.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here