A ‘STATED CONCEPT OF STATE FROM LEGAL PERSPETIVESTATE ARTICLE 12 OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION DEFINES THE MEANING OF THE TERM “STATE” FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE CONSTITUTION. ACCORDING TO ARTICLE 12, “STATE” INCLUDES THE FOLLOWING: 1. THE GOVERNMENT AND THE PARLIAMENT OF INDIA 2. THE GOVERNMENT AND LEGISLATURE OF EACH OF THE STATES IN INDIA 3. ALL LOCAL OR OTHER AUTHORITIES WITHIN THE TERRITORY OF INDIA OR UNDER THE CONTROL OF THE INDIAN GOVERNMENT THUS, THE TERM “STATE” UNDER ARTICLE 12 IS NOT LIMITED TO JUST THE GOVERNMENT AND LEGISLATIVE BODIES BUT ALSO INCLUDES OTHER ENTITIES THAT EXERCISE POWER AND AUTHORITY WITHIN THE TERRITORY OF INDIA OR UNDER THE CONTROL OF THE INDIAN GOVERNMENT.t IS THE JUDICIARY A STATE UNDER ARTICLE 12 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA? UNDER ARTICLE 12 OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION, THE TERM “STATE” HAS BEEN DEFINED TO INCLUDE THE GOVERNMENT AND PARLIAMENT OF INDIA, THE GOVERNMENT AND 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. THE JUDICIARY, BEING ONE OF THE THREE PILLARS OF INDIAN DEMOCRACY, IS NOT SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED AS AN “OTHER AUTHORITY” UNDER ARTICLE 12. HOWEVER, THE JUDICIARY EXERCISES THE POWER OF THE STATE TO INTERPRET THE CONSTITUTION AND PROTECT THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF CITIZENS. IN SEVERAL JUDGMENTS, THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA HAS HELD THAT THE JUDICIARY CAN BE CONSIDERED A PART OF THE STATE FOR THE PURPOSE OF RCING FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION.W WHETHER JUDICIARY FALLS UNDER THE e DEFINITION OF STATE + PREM CHAND GaRc V. EXCISE COMMISSIONER ~ THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT IF STATE IS EXERCISING RULEMAKING POWER. THEN IT WILL FALL UNDER THE DEFINITION OF STATE UNDER ARTICLE 12 IN THE INDIAN ConsTITUTION. + ALR ANTULAY V. R.S NAYAK- SEVEN CONSTITUTIONAL BENCHES OF SUPREME COURT LAID DOWN THE LANDMARK OBSERVATION, AND HELD THAT COURT CANNOT ISSUE ANY DIRECTION THAT ABRIDGES/ VIOLATES ANY FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS. AND LAID DOWN A REMARK JUDGMENT THAT IF THE COURT IS PERFORMING NON- JUDICIAL FUNCTION THEN IT WILL FALL UNDER THE DEFINITION OF STATE UNDER ARTICLE 12 OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION. AND IF THE COURT IS PERFORMING THE JUDICIAL FUNCTION IT WILL NOT FALL UNDER THE DEFINITION OF STATE UNDER ARTICLE 12 OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION. + _L. CHANDRA KUMAR V. UNION OF INDIA AIR 1997 SC _1125- SUPREME COURT HELD THAT NO WRIT PROCEEDING CAN BE ENTERTAINED IF THE COURT DOES NOT HAVE PROPER JURISDICTION. + KESHVANANDA BHARTI CASE (MATHEW J) - SUPREME COURT HELD THAT DEFINITION OF STATE GIVEN UNDER PART III DOES NOT APPLY TO OTHER PARTS OF THE CONSTITUTION. AND THE DEFINITION GIVEN UNDER ARTICLE36 DOES NOT APPLY TO PART IIInternational Airport Authority of India for Peed {Inthe case of Ramana Dayaram Shetty. International Airport Authority of India (IAAL), the Supreme Court ai dawn the guidelines to ‘determine whether an entity can be considered an “ther authority” under Article 12 ofthe Indian Constitution. The guidelines ae as follows: 1, _ Existence of a statutory authority: The entity must have been created by a statute, which provides for its powers and functions. 2. Funetional character: The entity must be discharging a public function or an essential public utility. 3, Financial autonomy: The entity must be financially independent, or its finances must be deeply intertwined the government, ‘The court held that if an entity satisfies all or most of these guidelines, it can be considered an “other authority” under Article 12, The court also noted that even if an entity is not created by a statute, it can still be considered an “other authority” if it satisfies the other criteria mentioned above. Furthermore, the court held that entities that are considered “other authorities” under Article 12 are subject to the ‘writ jurisdiction of the High Courts and the Supreme Court. This means that their actions can be challenged before the courts if they violate fundamental ri | | | | | | | | 4 Coney te permenant et beet toast ers of etl yh rene | | | | | | its or are otherwise illegal or arbitrary.eS Whether BCCI is a State or not? THE INTERPRETATION OF ARTICLE 12 OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION HAS BEEN THE SUBJECT OF MANY COURT CASES, INCLUDING ZEE TELEFILMS V. UNION OF INDIA (AIR 2005 SC 2677). IN THIS CASE, THE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT THE BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN INDIA (BCCI) CANNOT BE CONSIDERED A “STATE” UNDER ARTICLE 12, AS IT IS NOT CREATED BY A STATUTE AND IS NOT DOMINATED BY THE GOVERNMENT FINANCIALLY, FUNCTIONALLY, OR ADMINISTRATIVELY. THIS RULING IS RELEVANT BECAUSE IT CLARIFIES THAT NOT ALL BODIES OR ORGANIZATIONS CAN BE CONSIDERED “STATES” UNDER ARTICLE 12 OF THE CONSTITUTION. FOR AN ENTITY TO. BE CONSIDERED A “STATE,” IT MUST MEET CERTAIN CRITERIA, INCLUDING BEING CREATED BY A STATUTE AND BEING DOMINATED BY THE GOVERNMENT IN VARIOUS WAYS.STATE AS NON-GOVERNMENTAL 4 BODIES: THE COMPOSITION IS DETERMINED WHEN THE REPRESENTATIVE OF GOVERNMENT, ITS EXPENSES ARE AT THE COST OF THE GOVERNMENT. THE RULES MADE FOR SOCIETY ARE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE GOVERNMENT AND IT SHALL ALSO. COMPLY WITH ALL DIRECTIONS OF THE GOVERNMENT AND IT SHOULD BE OBVIOUSLY GOVERNED BY GOVERNMENT THEN IT CAN BE NOTICED THAT NON-STATUTORY BODIES ARE A ‘STATE’. IN AJAY HASIA V KHALID MUJIB, AIR 1981 SC 487 CASE, THE COURT OBSERVED THAT ANY SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER SOCIETY REGISTRATION ACT OF 1898 IS AN “AGENCY” OR “INSTRUMENTALITY OF THE STATE”. IT SHALL BE INDIVIDUAL OR AN ORGANIZATION PERFORMING TH E ‘OF GOVERNMENT OR IN SUPPORT OF A GOVERNMENT OR IS. DISCHARGING A DUTY OF STATE CAN BE CONSIDERED AS A as JON OF INDIA AIR 2005 SC 2677 CASE, TH s ‘THAT BCCI (BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN INDIA) IS NOT CREATED BY A STATUTE, NOT DOMINATED BY GOVERNMENT EITHER FINANCIALLY, FUNCTIONALLY OR ADMINISTRATIVELY AND HELD THAT BCCI CANNOT BE CALLED A STATE AS UNDER ARTICLE 12 OF THE CONSTITUTION., AND A Ae PETITION CAN BE FILED AGAINST ITA IS NCERT STATE OR NON-STATE NNA V, NCI NCERT HAS BEEN HELD TO BE OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF ARTICLE 12. THE COURT OPINED THAT NCERT IS A SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER THE SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT. IT IS LARGELY AN AUTONOMOUS BODY; ITS ACTIVITIES ARE NOT WHOLLY RELATED TO GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTIONS; GOVERNMENTAL, CONTROL IS CONFINED MOSTLY TO ENSURING THAT ITS FUNDS ARE PROPERLY UTILIZED; ITS FUNDING IS NOT ENTIRELY FROM GOVERNMENT SOURCES.—— Conclusion THE WORD ‘STATE’ UNDER ARTICLE 12 HAS BEEN INTERPRETED. BY THE COURTS AS PER THE CHANGING TIMES. THROUGH OF DIFFERENT J DIFFERENT LAW WRITERS IN THEIR BOOKS OR LAW S\ OR LAW STUDENTS IS WHAT WHICH HAS GAINED WIDER MEANING FOR THE TERM ‘OTHER AUTHORITIES’ AND THERE A NEED NOW TO FINALLY DEFINE THIS IMPORTANT TERM IN CONTEXT TO ARTICLE 12 LE., “STATE”