ARTICLE 12

 Government of India
 State Government
 Local Bodies
 Other Authorities
o University of Madras v. Santa Bai
 State would include the authorities exercising governmental or
sovereign functions
 Ejusdem generis principle was applied
 Of similar nature / from the generic group
o Overruled by - Ujjam Bai v. St. of UP
 No common genus running in the bodies named in Article 12 nor can
these bodies be so placed in 1 category on any rational basis.
 Hence the rule of ejusdem generis cannot be applied
o Electricity Board Rajasthan v. Mohan Lal
 The expression 'other authorities' is wide enough to include all
authorities which are created by Constitution or statutes on whom
powers are conferred by law. It is not necessary that the statutory
authority should be engaged in performing governmental or sovereign
functions.
o Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagat Ram
 ONGC, LIC and IFC constitute states
 Justice Mathew
 What is the function of the authority is to be questioned
 Why test should be implemented
 Whether the function of the corporation are of public
importance which is closely related to governmental
functions, it should be treated as an
 Agency, or
 Instrumentality of the state
o RD Shetty v. Airport Authority
 J. Bhagwati
 If a body is an agency or instrumentality of the government it may
be an authority within the meaning of Art 12.
 Whether it is a statutory corporation, a govt. co or even a
registered society.
 Following tests were laid down in this state:
 The financial resources of the state is the chief funding source
 Existence of deep and pervasive state control
 Functional character - governmental importance
 If a dept of govt. is transferred to a corporation
 Whether the corporation enjoys monopoly status which is state
conferred or state protected.
o Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib
 A registered society under the Societies Registration Act is an agency
and instrumentality of state hence comes under the ambit of Article 12.
o Pradeep Kumar Biswas Case
 CSIR is a state.
o Zee Telefilms Ltd. v.
 BCCI is not a state
 STATUS OF JUDICIARY IN THE DEFINITION OF STATE
o Judicial functions
 Not a state
o Non - Judicial functions
 It is a state

ARTICLE 13
 Makes the constitution paramount in the country
 General limitation on the state
 Art 13(1)
o Pre Constitutional Legislations made void to the extent of the inconsistency
 Art 13(2)
o Post Constitutional statutes made void to the extent of the contravention
o State shall not take any law which contravenes this part.
o St. of Gujrat v. Ambica Mills
 DOCTRINE OF SEVERABILITY
o "To the extent of"
o If a law can be segregated into 2 separate parts, the parts which is in contravention
will be void
o If the law cannot be segregated into 2 separate parts and their nexus is too close,
the entire law will be declared void.
o Kihote Hollohan v. Zachillur
 Sec 10 of the Xth Schedule minus Para 7 was held to be valid
 DOCTRINE OF ECLIPSE
o Inconsistency with the FR, the law becomes dormant and not dead.
o As soon as this inconsistency is removed, the law becomes alive/ valid.
o When existing law violates FR it become inoperative and dormant to the extent of
inconsistency. The consequence is that as soon as inconsistency is removed the
eclipse is removed and as and when the eclipse is removed the law comes back
into operation.
o Bhikaji Narain Dakra v. State of MP
 MV Act
 Art 19(1)(g)
 http://lawtimesjournal.in/bhikaji-narain-dhakras-ors-vs-the-state-of-madhya-
pradesh-ors/
 JUDICIAL REVIEW
 Art 13(3)
o Definition of Law
 Art 13(4)
o Law does not include amendments
 DOCTRINE OF WAIVER
o Basheshwar Nath v. CIT
 FR not private rights and have public importance and put limitations on the
state hence one cannot waive them

Nature of Voidness
 The voidness is limited to the extent of inconsistency or contravention
 In 13(1) voidness will be from the time of enforcement of PART III
  In 13(2) voidness will be from the time of enactment of law.
 In both clauses law will be void only against FR and it will remain valid against other
things.
 As many of the FR are available to citizens only, it will be inoperative against citizens
but will apply against non-citizens.
 Clause (1) does not have retrospective view. It neither repeals nor does it amend the
law. The law remains there and the moment inconsistency is removed the law comes
into force.

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FR AND DPSP

 DPSP
o Part IV
o A36-51
o Irish Constitution
o Are the directions in the form of principles that a state must follow in
governance of the country.
o They are the means to achieve the idea of welfare state as envisaged by the
constitution.
o They constitute a comprehensive political, social, economic program for a
modern democratic state.
o Political Remedy instead of legal
o Play a part in broadening the scope of FR
 DPSP v. FR
o Non Justiciable v Justiciable
o Positive Command for the State v Limitations upon state action
o Nature - Social and economic v Civil and political rights
 Journey from Irreconcibility to Integration
o State of Madras v. Champakan Doraijan
o Re Kerala Education Bill
 Fundamental rights should be held along with DPSPs and both
fundamental rights
 Harmonious construction
o 25th Amendment
 If a law is made to give effect to 39(d) & (c) it cannot be challenged on
the grounds that it violates A. 14, 19 or 31
o 42nd Amendment
 Widened the scope of A. 31© and covered all the DPSPs hence giving
precedence to all the DPSPs over FRs.
o Keshvananda Bharti v. State of Kerala
 FRs and DPSPs are meant to supplement each other. Both are equally
fundamental though DPSPs are not directly enforceable by the court.
o Minerva Mills Case
 Court struck down A. 31© on the grounds that it destroys basic feature
of constitution. The court observed that constitution is founded on the
bed rock of balance between part III and IV. To give the absolute
primacy to one over another is to disturb the harmony of the constitution
which is its basic feature.