Skip to content

ChatGPT

Share

You said:

Explain Article 12 of Indian Constitution with a good explanation of all landmark judgments in easy
language

2/2

ChatGPT said:

Sure! Here's a clear and simple explanation of Article 12 of the Indian Constitution, along with key
landmark judgments that help us understand it better.

🔵 What is Article 12?

Article 12 defines the term “State” for the purpose of Part III of the Constitution (Fundamental
Rights).

📜 Text of Article 12:

"In this part, unless the context otherwise requires, the State 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 under the control of the Government of India."

🧠 Simple Meaning:

To protect Fundamental Rights, it’s important to know who the rights are protected against.

 Article 12 tells us who counts as "State", meaning who can be challenged in court for
violating Fundamental Rights.

 It includes:

 Central Government (Union)

 State Governments

 Parliament and State Legislatures

 Local authorities (like municipalities, panchayats)

 Other authorities (includes bodies like public sector units, some universities, etc.)

⚖️ Important Landmark Judgments on Article 12:

These judgments help clarify who or what comes under “State”:

🔹 Rajasthan Electricity Board v. Mohan Lal (AIR 1967 SC 1857)- 5-judge Constitution Bench of the
Supreme Court of India

🧠 Background:

 Mohan Lal was an employee of the Rajasthan Electricity Board.

 He was dismissed from his job without being given a reasonable opportunity to be heard
(which violated Article 311, related to dismissal of government employees).

 He approached the court, claiming that his Fundamental Rights were violated.

⚖️ Legal Question:

Is the Rajasthan Electricity Board a "State" under Article 12 of the Constitution?

Because if it is, then Mohan Lal can claim protection of Fundamental Rights against it.

🧠 Judgment Summary:

The Supreme Court held that:

Yes, the Rajasthan Electricity Board is “State” under Article 12.

& Why?

The court explained that:

1. The term "other authorities" in Article 12 is not limited to government departments.

2. It includes all authorities created by the Constitution or by a law, which:

o Have the power to make rules or regulations.

o Have the power to affect the rights of citizens.

3. The Rajasthan Electricity Board was created under a statute (law).

4. It had powers like levying charges, regulating electricity, and hiring/firing employees.

Therefore, it was performing public functions, and was under the control of the State.

📌 Importance of the Case:

 This case was the first to give a wide interpretation to the term “other authorities” under
Article 12.

 It set the tone for future judgments and laid the foundation for holding statutory bodies
accountable under Fundamental Rights.

 Opened the door to include public corporations, boards, and authorities under the definition
of "State".
2. Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagatram (1975)

Background of the Case:

This case dealt with employees of three big public sector corporations:

 Oil and Natural Gas Commission (ONGC)

 Life Insurance Corporation (LIC)

 Industrial Finance Corporation (IFC)

These employees were terminated or faced disciplinary actions, and they challenged it in court saying.
Their fundamental rights under Article 14 (Right to Equality) and Article 16 (Right to Equal Opportunity
in Public Employment) were [Link] these companies were not traditional government
departments. So the main question was whether employees can be maintained?

Main Legal Issue:

1. Are these corporations (ONGC, LIC, IFC) “State” under Article 12 of the Constitution?
2. If yes, then Fundamental Rights apply, and employees can challenge unfair treatment.

Supreme Court’s Ruling:

The Court held that:

 ONGC, LIC, and IFC are "State" under Article 12 of the Constitution.

Why?

Because:

1. They were created by special laws (statutes).

2. They perform public duties.

3. The government has deep control over them — appoints top officials, controls finances, and
gives directions.

4. They function for public benefit, not just profit.

Therefore, their actions must comply with Fundamental Right

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

Background / Facts of the Case:

 The International Airport Authority of India (IAAI) invited tenders for running a second-class
restaurant at Bombay Airport.
 One of the conditions was that only those having at least 5 Years of experience in running
hotels/restaurants could apply.
 Ramana Dayaram Shetty, a businessman, submitted a tender even though he did not meet
the 5 Years experience requirement, but his tender was the lowest (which usually wins in
government contracts).

 The IAAI accepted the tender of another party, who also didn’t meet the 5 Years
requirement.
  Ramana Shetty challenged this in court, saying the decision was unfair and discriminatory,
and violated Article 14 (Right to Equality).

Main Legal Issue:

 Is the International Airport Authority of India (IAAI) a “State” under Article 12 of the
Constitution?

 Did IAAI violate Article 14 by not following its own tender conditions?

Judgment:

1. IAAI is “State” under Article 12:

 The Supreme Court said even though IAAI is a public corporation, it is:

o Performing public functions

o Created under a statute

o Substantially funded and controlled by the government

Therefore, it qualifies as “State” under Article 12, and must follow Fundamental Rights.

2. Violation of Article 14:

 The Court said IAAI acted arbitrarily.

 Even though the other party didn’t meet the eligibility condition, they were awarded the
contract.

 Arbitrariness = violation of equality under Article 14.

Key Takeaways:

Point Explanation

IAAI is “State” Because it is a government-controlled body doing public work

Arbitrary action Awarding tender to someone who didn’t meet criteria was unfair

Article 14 applies Even public corporations must act fairly and not arbitrarily

4. Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi (1981)- a landmark Judgement

🔹 Background of the Case:

 Facts:
Khalid Mujib Sehravardi had applied for admission to an engineering college under the
Jammu and Kashmir Regional Engineering College, Srinagar.
He alleged that the interview and selection process was unfair and arbitrary and thus
violated his Fundamental Rights under Article 14 (Right to Equality).
  The college was run by a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, not
directly by the government.

❓ Main Legal Issue:

The key question was:

Is the engineering college (run by a society) considered "State" under Article 12 of the
Constitution?
If yes, then it could be challenged for violating Fundamental Rights.

(Judgment):

Yes, the college is “State” under Article 12.

Even though the college was run by a society, it was:

 Completely funded by the government

 Controlled by government officials

 Doing a public function (education)

So, it was acting as an "instrumentality or agency of the government".

Key Principles Laid Down:

The court laid down the famous “Instrumentality or Agency Test” to decide if a body is "State":

➤ A body can be considered "State" under Article 12 if:

1. It is financially supported by the government.

2. It is controlled by the government (administratively or functionally).

3. It performs public functions or duties.

4. It has deep and pervasive control by the government.

5. It is of public importance.

6. It was created by a statute or operates under one.

If a body satisfies most or all of these factors, it will be considered "State".

Why This Case is Important:

 It expanded the scope of Article 12 to include non-governmental bodies that function like
government instruments.

 It ensured that citizens can enforce Fundamental Rights even against indirect or semi-
government bodies.

 It emphasized transparency and fairness in admissions and public functions.

Conclusion:

Even if an organization is not officially a part of the government, if it is funded, controlled, and
performs public duties — it will be considered "State" under Article 12.

because it shows that form doesn't matter — function does. If you’re doing a government-like job
with government money and power, you are accountable under Fundamental Rights.

5. Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology (2002)Citation: (2002) 5 SCC 111
Bench: 7 Judges of the Supreme Court
(This was a Constitution Bench, which means it handled an important constitutional question.)

Core Question:

Is the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) a “State” under Article 12 of the Indian
Constitution?

Background:

 Pradeep Kumar Biswas was an employee of Indian Institute of Chemical Biology, which is a
unit of CSIR.

 He was removed from his service and he challenged this decision.

 But CSIR argued that it is not a "State", so Fundamental Rights do not apply to it.

 The case went to the Supreme Court to decide whether CSIR is a "State" under Article 12.

What is CSIR?

 It’s a scientific research organization in India.

 Funded mainly by the Government of India.

 Managed by government-appointed officials.

 Plays a public role in scientific development.

Supreme Court Ruling:

The Supreme Court held that CSIR is a "State" under Article 12.

Why?

The Court used the "instrumentality or agency" test and found:

1. Almost full funding comes from the government.

2. The government controls the policies and functioning of CSIR.

3. It performs public duties, not private work.

4. Senior positions are filled by government nominees.

 5. It is not independent of the government.

Key Legal Principles Established:

1. Instrumentality Test Reaffirmed:

o If a body is an "instrumentality or agency" of the government, it is "State" under

Article 12.

2. Expanded Scope of Article 12:

o Even if a body is not created directly by a statute, if it is government-dominated, it

can still be "State".

3. Overruled Previous Narrow View:

o Earlier, some said CSIR was not "State" (in the Sabhajit Tewary case, 1975). That
was overruled.

Why this Case is Important:

 It cleared confusion about government-funded bodies.

 Ensured that citizens can file writ petitions under Article 32 or 226 if such bodies violate
their Fundamental Rights.

 Protected the rights of employees working in government-controlled organizations.

In Simple Terms:

“If an organization is fully funded, controlled, and used by the government to perform public
functions — it is considered part of the State. So, it must respect Fundamental Rights.

6. Zee Telefilms Ltd. v. Union of India (2005)

Background of the Case:

 Zee Telefilms, a private TV channel, wanted to telecast cricket matches.

 They challenged a decision made by the BCCI (Board of Control for Cricket in India),
claiming that BCCI was violating their Fundamental Rights under Article 19(1)(g)
(freedom to carry on trade or business).

 To do this, they needed to show that BCCI was “State” under Article 12 of the
Constitution.

Main Legal Question:

Is BCCI a "State" under Article 12 of the Indian Constitution?

Supreme Court’s Decision:

BCCI is NOT “State” under Article 12

The majority judgment (5-judge bench) ruled that BCCI is NOT a State because:

1. Not created by a statute (law made by Parliament).

2. No deep government control over its day-to-day functioning.

3. Not substantially funded by the government.

4. Not performing a government duty, even though cricket is of national importance.

So, even though BCCI performs an important role in Indian cricket, it is an autonomous body,
not under government control, and hence not answerable under Article 12.

Dissenting View (Justice Sinha):

One judge disagreed and said BCCI should be considered “State” because:

 It selects players for the national team (represents India).

 Regulates a game followed by millions.

 Exercises a monopoly in Indian cricket.

But this was a minority opinion and not the final ruling.

Importance of the Case:

 Narrowed the scope of "other authorities" under Article 12.

 Established that private bodies, even with public influence, must meet strict tests
(created by law, funded, or controlled by the government) to be called “State”.

 However, such bodies can still be challenged under Article 226 (writ jurisdiction) if
they perform public functions.

✅ Summary:

12.

7. Binny Ltd. v. V. Sadasivan (2005)

🔹 Ruling: Private bodies may still be challenged under Article 226 (writ jurisdiction) if they
discharge public functions.

🔹 Importance: Even if a body is not a State under Article 12, it may still be answerable in court
for public duties.

🧠 Summary Table:
 State under Article
Body/Authority 12? Reason

Govt. Departments ✅ Yes Direct part of govt.

Municipalities/Panchayats ✅ Yes Local authorities

LIC, ONGC, etc. ✅ Yes Created by law, govt-controlled

CSIR, Airport Authority ✅ Yes Govt-controlled, public duties

BCCI ❌ No Private body, not govt-controlled

But may be challenged under Article 226 if doing publi

Private Companies ❌ Not directly work

🧠 Key Test to Identify "State":

The Instrumentality or Agency Test (Ajay Hasia case):

1. Financial aid from government

2. Deep government control

3. Performs public functions

4. Created by or under a statute

🏁 Conclusion:

 Article 12 is the gateway to Fundamental Rights.

 It ensures State actions can be challenged if they violate rights.

 Over time, the courts have widened the scope to include bodies with public importance, not
just traditional government organs.