CASE BRIEF- STATE ORGAN

S.no Case Name Description

1. Common Cause v. UOI, (2015) 7 8. Part IV of the Constitution is as much a
SCC 1 guiding light for the Judicial organ of the
State as the Executive and the Legislative
arms, all three being integral parts of the
“State” within the meaning of Article 12 of
the Constitution. [Naresh Shridhar
Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra, AIR
1967 SC 1 : (1966) 3 SCR 744]

34. The gaps, if any, we are confident

would be filled up by the executive arm of
the Government itself inasmuch as the
attainment of constitutional goals and
values enshrined in Part IV of the
Constitution is the conjoint responsibility of
the three organs of the State i.e. legislative,
executive and the judiciary, as earlier
discussed.
2. Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals 39. In Asif Hameed v. State of J&K [1989
Ltd. v. Workmen, (2007) 1 SCC Supp (2) SCC 364: AIR 1989 SC 1899] this
408 Court observed: (SCC pp. 373-74, paras
17&19)

“17. Before adverting to the controversy

directly involved in these appeals we may
have a fresh look at the inter se functioning
of the three organs of democracy under our
Constitution. Although the doctrine of
separation of powers has not been
recognised under the Constitution in its
absolute rigidity but the Constitution-
makers have meticulously defined the
functions of various organs of the State.

1|Page
 CASE BRIEF- STATE ORGAN

Legislature, executive and judiciary have to

function within their own spheres
demarcated under the Constitution. No
organ can usurp the functions assigned to
another. The Constitution trusts to the
judgment of these organs to function and
exercise their discretion by strictly
following the procedure prescribed therein.
The functioning of democracy depends
upon the strength and independence of each
of its organs. Legislature and executive, the
two facets of people's will, they have all the
powers including that of finance. Judiciary
has no power over sword or the purse,
nonetheless it has power to ensure that the
aforesaid two main organs of State function
within the constitutional limits.

3. Nandini Sundar v. State of 83. In a recent judgment by a Constitution

Chhattisgarh, (2011) 7 SCC 547 Bench, GVK Industries v. ITO [(2011) 4
SCC 36] this Court observed: (SCC p. 58,
paras 35-36)
“35. Our Constitution charges the various
organs of the State with affirmative
responsibilities of protecting the interests
of, the welfare of and the security of the
nation … powers are granted to enable the
accomplishment of the goals of the nation.
The powers of judicial review are granted in
order to ensure that legislative and
executive powers are used within the
bounds specified in the Constitution.
Consequently, it is imperative that the
powers so granted to various organs of the

2|Page
 CASE BRIEF- STATE ORGAN

State are not restricted impermissibly by

judicial fiat such that it leads to inabilities
of the organs of the State in discharging
their constitutional responsibilities.
36. Powers that have been granted, and
implied by, and borne by the Constitutional
text have to be perforce admitted.
Nevertheless, the very essence of
constitutionalism is also that no organ of
the State may arrogate to itself powers
beyond what is specified in the
Constitution.

 84. The primordial value is that it is the

4. State Trading Corpn. of India, Ltd.
v. CTO, (1964) 4 SCR 99
responsibility of every organ of the State to
function within the four corners of
constitutional responsibility. That is the
ultimate rule of law.
90. The State Trading Corporation has been
constituted not by any special statute or
charter but under the Indian Companies Act
as a Private Limited Company. It may be
wound up by order of a competent Court.
Though it functions under the supervision
of the Government of India and its
Directors, it is not concerned with
performance of any governmental
functions. Its functions being commercial, it
cannot be regarded as either a department or
an organ of the Government of India. It is a
circumstance of accident that on the date of
its incorporation and thereafter its entire
share-holding was held by the President and
the two Secretaries to the Government of

3|Page
 CASE BRIEF- STATE ORGAN
5. Delhi Transport Corpn. v. D.T.C.
Mazdoor Congress, 1991 Supp (1)
SCC 600
6. Central Inland Water Transport
Corpn. v. Brojo Nath Ganguly,
(1986) 3 SCC 156
India.
94. The assumption underlying the second
question that a department and organ of the
Union or the State even if it is entitled to be
called a citizen cannot claim to enforce
fundamental rights under Part III of the
Constitution against the “State” as defined
in Article 12 thereof needs to be examined.
Assuming that the State Trading
Corporation is a department or organ of the
Government of India, it is not still seeking
to enforce any fundamental rights against
the Union of India: it is seeking to enforce
its rights against the State of Andhra
Pradesh. 
154. In A.K. Kraipak v. Union of
India [(1969) 2 SCC 262] it has been held
at pages 268-69 paragraph 13- 6th line:
Under our Constitution the rule of law
pervades over the entire field of
administration. Every organ of the State
under our Constitution is regulated and
controlled by the rule of law. 
18. The term “States” is defined variously
in some of the other articles of the
Constitution as the context of the particular
Part of the Constitution in which it is used
requires. Part VI of the Constitution is
headed “The States” and provides for the
form of the three organs of a State,
namely, the Executive, the Legislature and
the Judiciary.
4|Page
 CASE BRIEF- STATE ORGAN

32. In its strict legal sense the written

Constitution of a country is a document
which defines the regular form or system of
its government, containing the rules that
directly or indirectly affect the distribution
or exercise of the sovereign power of the
State and it is thus mainly concerned with
the creation of the three organs of the State
— the Executive, the Legislature and the
Judiciary, and the distribution of
governmental power among them and the
definition of their mutual relation

7. Indian Medical Assn. v. Union of 170. In a recent decision, GVK Industries

India, (2011) 7 SCC 179 Ltd. v. ITO [(2011) 4 SCC 36] by a
Constitutional Bench, it was held:

35. Our Constitution charges the various

organs of the State with affirmative
responsibilities of protecting the interests
of, the welfare of and the security of the
nation. Legislative powers are granted to
enable the accomplishment of the goals of
the nation. … Consequently, it is imperative
that the powers so granted to various
organs of the State are not restricted
impermissibly by judicial fiat such that it
leads to inabilities of the organs of the State
in discharging their constitutional
responsibilities.
8. State of Bihar v. Bal Mukund Sah, 56. In the case of All India Judges'
(2000) 4 SCC 640 Assn. [(1993) 4 SCC 288 has made the
following apposite observations in paras 4

5|Page
CASE BRIEF- STATE ORGAN

& 5.
When it is said that in a democracy such as
ours, the Executive, the Legislature and the
Judiciary constitute the three pillars of the
State, what is intended to be conveyed is
that the three essential functions of the State
are entrusted to the three organs of the
State and each one of them in turn
represents the authority of the State.

77. On the one hand, it is submitted that the

said Chapter VI is a self-contained
provision with which no interference can be
had by any other organ of the State,
namely, the Executive and the Legislature.
On the other hand it is contended that
conceding that the provisions made in the
said chapter are mandatory, the Executive
or the Legislature is not debarred from
supplementing those provisions without
transgressing the limit imposed by law or
making such provision which may not
amount to interference with the Judiciary
endangering its independence.

86. “Public service” means anything done

for the service of the public in any part of
the country in relation to the affairs of the
Union or the State. It was the opposite of
private service. Persons connected with the
discharge of public duties relating to any of
the organs of the State i.e. Executive,
Judiciary and Legislature including the
armed forces, would be termed as “public
6|Page
 CASE BRIEF- STATE ORGAN

servants” engaged in the service of the

public.
9. M/s. Akhil Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. v. 7. The Respondent-Bank is a nationalized
Central Bank of India, 2017 SCC bank and as such the State within a meaning
OnLine Bom 4253. of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. It
is settled law that every organ of the State
is required to adhere the principles of
reasonableness, equity, fairness and good
conscience.
10. Balwant Rai Gupta v. Jammu & 22. Undoubtedly, every government
Kashmir Bank Ltd, 1991 SCC company under Section 617 of the
OnLine Del 622 Companies Act cannot be termed as an
instrumentality of the State or an organ of
the State within the meaning
of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. 
11. M/s. Sescot Sheet Metal Works 11. Keeping in mind the above enunciated
Ltd. v.  The Customs, Excise & principles laid down by the Supreme Court
Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, in Pradeep Kumar Biswas's case, a cursory
2015 SCC OnLine Mad 7384 reading of the order passed by the Tribunal,
reveals that the Department itself has
accepted that the appellant is a State funded,
State controlled and State monitored
organisation supplying goods to Civil
Supplies Corporation, which is
another organ of the State. 
12. Industrial Finance Corporation of In Basheshar Nath v. Income-tax
India v. Delhi Administration, 1973 Commissioner, A.I.R. 1959 S.C. 149, (8)
SCC OnLine Del 28 the Supreme Court observed at page 158
that “by virtue of Article 12, “the State”
which is, by Article 14, forbidden to
discriminate between persons 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

7|Page
 CASE BRIEF- STATE ORGAN
13. Rakesh Kumar & Ors v. Municipal
Corporation of Delhi & Anr, 2005
SCC OnLine Del 1273
under the control of the Government of
India”, and that “Article 12 includes the
executive organ”.
Coming now to the definition of the words
“the State” in Article 12, as pointed out by
the Supreme Court in K.K.
Kochunni v. State of Madras, A.I.R. 1959
S.C. 725, 730 (7) and in Basheshar
Nath v. Income-tax Commissioner, A.I.R.
1959 S.C. 149, 158, (8), Article 12 gives an
extended meaning to the words “the State”
wherever they occur in Part III of the
Constitution, and unless the context
otherwise requires “the State” will include
not only the Executive and Legislative
organs of the Union and the States, but also
local bodies such as municipal authorities as
well as “other authorities within the
territory of India or under the control of the
Government of India.”
25. The petitioner/appellants have not been
able to point out any statutory rule on the
basis of which their claim of regularization
can be considered. It is well settled that
unless there exists some rule for
regularization no direction can be issued by
this court to consider the claim for
regularization of an employee.
Regularisation of an employee is an
execution function, and it is not appropriate
for this court to encroach into the functions
of another organ of the State. The courts
must exercise judicial restraint in this
8|Page
 CASE BRIEF- STATE ORGAN
14. Ravinder Kumar v. Director,
AIIMS, 2005 SCC OnLine Del
1320
15. The Kondli Vikas Cooperative
Dairy Society Ltd. and others. v.
Delhi Milk Scheme and another,
1999 SCC OnLine Del 174
connection.
24. It is well settled that unless there exists
some rule for regularization no direction
can be issued by this court to consider the
claim for regularization of an employee.
Regularisation of an employee is an
executive function, and it is not appropriate
for this court to encroach into the functions
of another organ of the State. The courts
must exercise judicial restraint in this
connection.
In Mahabir Auto Stores and others (supra)
the well-recognised principles as enshrined
in Article 14 of the Constitution of
India have been reiterated.
Paragraphs 12 and 13 may be referred to as
below:
“12. It is well settled that every action of the
State or an instrumentality of the State in
exercise of its executive power, must be
informed by reason. In appropriate cases,
actions uninformed by reason may be
questioned as arbitrary in proceedings
under Article 226 or Article 32 of the
Constitution. Reliance in this connection
may be placed on the observations of this
Court in M/s. Radha (1977) 3 SCC 457 :
(AIR 1977 SC 1496). It appears to us, at the
outset, that in the facts and circumstances of
the case, the respondent-company IOC is
an organ of the State or an instrumentality
of the State as contemplated
under Article 12 of the Constitution.
9|Page
 CASE BRIEF- STATE ORGAN
16. State Bank of India v. Kalpaka
Transport Company Private Ltd.,
1978 SCC OnLine Bom 200
17. Rajendra Singh Rawat v. The
Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti & ors.,
1992 SCC OnLine Raj 312.
The State acts in its executive power
under Article 298 of the Constitution in
entering or not entering in contracts with
individual parties. Article 14 of the
Constitution would be applicable to those
exercises of power. Therefore, the action of
State organ under Article 14 can be
checked. 
35. The Supreme Court in Sukhdev Singh's
case clearly points out that art. 14 of the
Constitution imparts a limitation or imposes
an obligation on the State's executive power
under art. 298 of the Constitution. All
constitutional powers carry corresponding
obligations with them. This is the true rule
of law, which regulates the operation of
organs of Government functioning under a
Constitution.
39. As the horizon of the State's activities is
expanding in the modern welfare State,
judicial concepts are being remodelled to
suit new situations. If the States' organ is
vested with powers, the concept of contract
is being replaced by constitutional
obligations.
31. The preamble contains the key for the
interpretation of the various constitutional
provisions. The State has three organs,
namely, the Legislature, the Executive and
Judiciary.
The areas of operation of each of these three
organs have been defined by various
10 | P a g e
 CASE BRIEF- STATE ORGAN
18. Subhas C. Saini v. State of Punjab,
2013 SCC OnLine P&H 23084
19. Basheshar Nath v. CIT, 1959
Supp (1) SCR 528
provisions of the Constitution. However,
every organ of the State which represents
the people of India is under the obligation to
make an endeavour to achieve the ideals
specified in the preamble. By virtue of part
IV(A) of the Constitution it has now been
made obligatory for every citizen to
discharge his fundamental duties.
(41) Where the control whether under the
statute or otherwise is regulatory in nature,
it may not be sufficient to hold the body as
an organ of the State. These principles have
been reiterated in the recent decisions in
(i) Ramesh Ahluwalia v. State of
Punjab(2) and (ii) Civil Appeal No. 9017 of
2013 Thalappalam Ser. Cooperative Bank
Limited v. State of Kerala, decided on
07.10.2013.
Article 14, therefore, is an injunction to
both the legislative as well as the executive
organs of the State and the other
subordinate authorities.
As regards the legislative organ of the State,
the fundamental right is further
consolidated and protected by the
provisions of Article 13. Clause (1) of that
article provides that all laws in force in the
territories of India immediately before the
commencement of the Constitution, insofar
as they are inconsistent with the provisions
of Part III shall, to the extent of the
inconsistency be void. Likewise clause (2)
of this article prohibits the State from
making any law which takes away or
11 | P a g e
CASE BRIEF- STATE ORGAN

abridges the rights conferred by the same

Part and follows it up by saying that any
law made in contravention of this clause
shall, to the extent of the contravention, be
void. It will be observed that, so far as this
article is concerned, there is no relaxation of
the restriction imposed by it such as there
are in some of the other articles e.g. Article
19 clauses (2) to (6). Our right to equality
before the law is thus completely and
without any exception secured from all
legislative discrimination. It is not
necessary, for the purpose of this appeal to
consider whether an executive order is a
“law” within the meaning of Article 13, for
even without the aid of Article 13 our right
to the equal protection of the law is
protected against the vagaries, if any, of the
executive Government also. In this
connection the observations of Lord Atkin
in Eshugbayi Eleko v. Officer
Administering the Government of
Nigeria [L.R. (1931) AC 662] are apposite.
Said His Lordship at p. 670 that in
accordance with British jurisprudence no
member of the executive can interfere with
the liberty or property of a British subject
except when he can support the legality of
his act before a court of justice.
That apart, the very language of Article 14
of the Constitution expressly directs that
“the State”, which by Article 12 includes
the executive organ, shall not deny to any
person equality before the law or the equal
12 | P a g e
 CASE BRIEF- STATE ORGAN
20. LIC v. Escorts Ltd., (1986) 1 SCC
264
21. SKCC Bank Limited v. N
Seetharama Raju , 1990 SCC
OnLine AP 32
22. State of U.P. v. Jeet S. Bisht,
(2007) 6 SCC 586
protection of the law. Thus Article 14
protects us from both legislative and
executive tyranny by way of discrimination.
95. A company is, in some respects, an
institution like a State functioning under its
“basic Constitution” consisting of the
Companies Act and the Memorandum of
Association. Carrying the analogy of
constitutional law, a little further, Gower
describes “the members in general meeting”
and the directorate as the two primary
organs of a company and compares them
with the legislative and the executive
organs of a Parliamentary democracy
where legislative sovereignty rests with
Parliament, while administration is left to
the Executive Government, subject to a
measure of control by Parliament through
its power to force a change of government.
The main organ empowered to make laws
is of course the Legislature-whether at the
Centre or in the States. It is the
prerogative of the Legislature-and
legislature alone-either to enact the law
itself, or to delegate that function to a
person or authority-so long as it does not
delegate its essential legislative function.
46. Under our Constitution the judiciary, the
legislature and the executive have their own
broad spheres of operation. It is important
that these organs do not encroach on each
other's proper spheres and confine
themselves to their own, otherwise there
will always be danger of a reaction. Of the
13 | P a g e
CASE BRIEF- STATE ORGAN

three organs of the State, it is only the

judiciary which has the right to determine
the limits of jurisdiction of all these three
organs. This great power must therefore be
exercised by the judiciary with the utmost
humility and self-restraint.

77. Separation of powers is a favourite topic

for some of us. Each organ of the State in
terms of the constitutional scheme performs
one or the other functions which have been
assigned to the other organ. Although
drafting of legislation and its
implementation by and large are functions
of the legislature and the executive
respectively, it is too late in the day to say
that the constitutional court's role in that
behalf is non-existent. The judge-made law
is now well recognised throughout the
world. If one is to put the doctrine of
separation of power to such a rigidity, it
would not have been possible for any
superior court of any country, whether
developed or developing, to create new
rights through interpretative process.

78. Separation of powers in one sense is a

limit on active jurisdiction of each organ.
But it has another deeper and more relevant
purpose: to act as check and balance over
the activities of other organs. Thereby
the active jurisdiction of the organ is not
challenged; nevertheless there are methods
of prodding to communicate the institution
14 | P a g e
 CASE BRIEF- STATE ORGAN
23. State of Rajasthan v. Union of
India, (1977) 3 SCC 592
24. Jindal Stainless Ltd. v. State of
Haryana, (2017) 12 SCC 1
25. University of Kerala v. Council of
Principals of Colleges, Kerala,
(2010) 1 SCC 353  Gandhi v. Raj Narayan, 1975 Supp SCC 1]
of its excesses and shortfall in duty.
Constitutional mandate sets the dynamics of
this communication between the organs of
polity. Therefore, it is suggested to not
understand separation of powers as
operating in vacuum. Separation of powers
doctrine has been reinvented in modern
times
51. The basic assumption underlying the
views expressed above is that each of the
three organs of the State — the Executive,
the Legislature, and the Judiciary has its
own orbit of authority and operation. It
must be left free by the other organs to
operate within that sphere even if it
commits errors there
947. The organs of the States i.e.
executive, legislature and judiciary derive
their authority and discharge their
responsibilities within the framework of the
Constitution. Neither the Union Parliament
nor the State Legislature are sovereign. The
legislative power given to Parliament and
the State Legislature is provided for and
dealt with in the Constitution. The State is
sovereign to legislate on any subject in
conformity with the constitutional
limitations. What are the limitations
envisaged by the Constitution in exercise of
the legislative power of the State, is one of
the issues for consideration before us.
The court placed reliance on
30. In Indira Nehru Gandhi [Indira Nehru
15 | P a g e
 CASE BRIEF- STATE ORGAN
26. Central Inland Water Transport
Corpn. v. Brojo Nath Ganguly,
(1986) 3 SCC 156
hich is very pertinent in the present context
and I quote:
“684. The American Constitution provides
for a rigid separation of governmental
powers into three basic divisions, the
executive, legislative and judicial. It is an
essential principle of that Constitution that
powers entrusted to one department should
not be exercised by any other department.
The Australian Constitution follows the
same pattern of distribution of powers.
Unlike these Constitutions, the Indian
Constitution does not expressly vest the
three kinds of powers in three different
organs of the State. But the principle of
separation of powers is not a magic formula
for keeping the three organs of the State
within the strict confines of their functions.
18. The term “States” is defined variously
in some of the other articles of the
Constitution as the context of the particular
Part of the Constitution in which it is used
requires. Part VI of the Constitution is
headed “The States” and provides for the
form of the three organs of a State,
namely, the Executive, the Legislature and
the Judiciary. 
32. In its strict legal sense the written
Constitution of a country is a document
which defines the regular form or system of
its government, containing the rules that
directly or indirectly affect the distribution
16 | P a g e
 CASE BRIEF- STATE ORGAN
27. N. Kannadasan v. Ajoy Khose,
(2009) 7 SCC 1
or exercise of the sovereign power of the
State and it is thus mainly concerned with
the creation of the three organs of the
State — the Executive, the Legislature and
the Judiciary, and the distribution of
governmental power among them and the
definition of their mutual relation
47. The system of governance established
by the Constitution is based on distribution
of powers and functions amongst the three
organs of the State. It is the prerogative of
the legislature to enact laws; responsibility
of the executive to enforce the laws and
administer the country; and the duty of the
judiciary to adjudicate upon the disputes
that arise between individuals, between an
individual and the State or between
different States. 
48. It is the majesty of the institution that
has to be maintained and preserved in the
larger interest of the rule of law by which
we are governed. It is the obligation of each
organ of the State to support this important
institution. 
17 | P a g e