On this page
Article 12 defines the term 'State'. It says that unless the context otherwise requires, the term 'State' includes the following:
The term 'State' thus includes executive as well as the legislative organs of the Union and States. It is, therefore, the actions of these bodies that can be challenged before the courts as violating fundamental rights.
According to Webster's Dictionary: "Authority" means a person or body exercising power to command. In the context of Article 12, the word "authority" means the power to make laws, orders, regulations, bye-laws, notification etc. which have the force of law and power to enforce those laws.
Local authorities' as defined in Section 3 (31) of the General Clauses Act refers to authorities like Municipalities, District Boards, Panchayats, Improvement Trust and Mining Settlement Boards. In Mohammed Yasin v. Town Area Committee (AIR 1952 SC 115), the Supreme Court held that the bye-laws of a Municipal Committee charging a prescribed fee on the wholesale dealer was an order by a State authority which contravened Article 19 (1)(g). These bye-laws in effect and in substance have brought about a total stoppage of the wholesale dealer's business in the commercial sense. In Sri Ram v. The Notified Area Committee (AIR 1952 SC 118), a fee levied under Section 294 of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1919, was held to be invalid.
In Article 12 the expression "other authorities' is used after mentioning a few of them, such as, the Government, Parliament of India, the Government and Legislature of each of the States and all local authorities. In University of Madras v. Santa Bai (AIR 1954 Mad. 67), the Madras High Court held that ‘other authorities’ could only indicate authorities of a like nature, i.e. ejusdem generis. So construed, it could only mean authorities exercising governmental or sovereign functions. It could not include persons, natural or juristic, such as a University unless 'maintained by the State'.
In Ujjammbai v. State of U.P. (AIR 1962 SC 1621) the Court rejected this restrictive interpretation of the expression 'other authorities' given by the Madras High Court and held that the ejusdem generis rule could not be resorted to in interpreting this expression. In Article 12 the bodies specifically named are the Government of the Union and the States, the Legislature of the Union and the States and local authorities. There is no common genus running through these named bodies nor can these bodies so placed in one single category on any rational basis.
In Electricity Board, Rajasthan v. Mohan Lal (AIR 1967 SC 1857), the Supreme Court held the expression other authorities is wide enough to include all authorities created by the Constitution or statute on whom powers are conferred by law. It is not necessary that the statutory authority should be engaged in performing governmental or sovereign function. On this interpretation the expression 'other authorities' will include Rajasthan Electricity Beard, Cochin Devasom Board, Co-operative Society etc. The Chief Justice of a High Court is also included in the expression 'other authorities' as he has power to appoint officials of the Court. The Presidents when making order under Article 359 of the Constitution comes within the ambit of the expression 'other authorities'. In effect, the Rajasthan Electricity Board's decision has overruled the decision of the Madras High Court in Santa Bai's case, holding a University not to be "the State". And finally, the Patna High Court, following the decision of the Supreme Court, has held that the Patna University is "a State".
In subsequent decisions the Supreme Court has given a broad and liberal interpretation to the expression 'other authorities’ in Article 12. With the changing role of the State from merely being a police State to a welfare State it was necessary to widen the scope of the expression "authorities" in Article 12 so as to include all those bodies which were, though not created by the Constitution or by a statute, were acting as agencies or instrumentalities of the Government.
In Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. The International Airport Authority of India (AIR 1979 SC 1628), the Court held If a body is an agency or instrumentality of government it may be an 'authority' within the meaning of Article 12 whether it is a statutory corporation, a government company or even a registered society. Accordingly, the International Airport Authority created by an Act of Parliament is the "State" within the meaning of Article 12. The Central Government has power to appoint the Chairman and other members of the Airport Authority. It has power to terminate the appointment of any member from the Board. The capital needed by it is provided only by the Central Government.
In view of the judgment of 7 Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak (AIR 1988 SC 1531), where it has been held that the court cannot pass an order or issue a direction which would be violative of fundamental rights of citizens. It can be said that the expression "State" as defined in Article 12 of the Constitution includes the judiciary also.