Article 12: the meaning of 'State' and the doctrine of instrumentality

LUG-104 Constitutional Law-I, Unit II: Definition of the term ‘State’ in the context of fundamental rights (Article 12). · LLB · 60 min

Part III binds the 'State', so the first question in any fundamental rights case is whether the body complained against is State. This lecture reads the four limbs of Article 12, follows the Supreme Court from the narrow ejusdem generis view of University of Madras v. Shantha Bai through Rajasthan Electricity Board, Sukhdev Singh, R.D. Shetty and the six tests of Ajay Hasia to the 'cumulative domination' formula of Pradeep Kumar Biswas, and then applies it to BCCI (Zee Telefilms), NCERT and the judiciary (Mirajkar, Rupa Ashok Hurra). It is a ten-mark question in almost every paper.

Objectives

Explain the four categories of 'State' in Article 12 and why the definition matters for Part III.
Trace how the Supreme Court has read 'other authorities' from Shantha Bai to Pradeep Kumar Biswas.
Apply the six tests of Ajay Hasia and the cumulative test of Pradeep Kumar Biswas to a new body such as a society, company or sports board.
Distinguish a body that is 'State' (Article 32) from a private body performing public functions (Article 226).
Explain whether and when the judiciary is 'State'.

Slides

What Article 12 says and why it matters
The four limbs: Government, Legislature, local authorities, other authorities
The narrow view: University of Madras v. Shantha Bai and ejusdem generis
Rajasthan State Electricity Board v. Mohan Lal (1967): the statutory test
Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagatram (1975): the instrumentality idea is born
R.D. Shetty (1979) and Ajay Hasia (1981): the six tests
Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. IICB (2002): the cumulative domination test
Zee Telefilms v. Union of India (2005): BCCI, public functions and Article 226
Is the judiciary 'State'? Mirajkar, Prem Chand Garg, Antulay, Rupa Ashok Hurra
Applying the tests: a quick table of bodies
How the examiner asks it

Loading the lecture…