The Indian Constitution is both broad in scope and profound in its implications for the rights and liberties of Indian citizens. At the heart of its Part III—where Fundamental Rights are enshrined—lies Article 12, a pivotal provision that defines the term “State.” This definition is foundational, influencing the scope and enforceability of every right guaranteed under Part III. Without Article 12, the questions of who must uphold fundamental rights and against whom they can be enforced would remain unanswered. Over the years, Article 12 has come under judicial interpretation, evolving with social needs and posing practical dilemmas about accountability in modern governance.
Article 12 reads:
“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.”
The language appears technical but is deeply significant. At its core, Article 12 establishes the range of entities obliged to honor and uphold fundamental rights. The reach extends beyond the executive and legislative wings to local government units and other authorities—a category that has ignited much discussion in courts.
Why was such a broad definition necessary? The framers of the Constitution intended Fundamental Rights to be robust and enforceable against any institution performing a sovereign or public function, not just the narrow apparatus of the central or state government. This inclusive language creates a framework where citizens can seek redressal not only from governmental excesses but also from quasi-governmental bodies wielding public power.
The most straightforward component of Article 12 is its application to the Union (central) and various state governments. This covers every ministry, department, and official exercising statutory powers. As governance has become more complex, questions have arisen about the liability of state instrumentalities acting through policy or administrative action. Judicial decisions have repeatedly affirmed that all governmental actors fall within Article 12’s purview.
By explicitly mentioning legislatures, Article 12 ensures that actions—whether legislative or administrative—are subject to constitutional scrutiny if they violate Fundamental Rights. This means the laws passed by Parliament and state legislatures can be challenged and are not immune simply because they originate from legislatures.
The real complexity surfaces with the terms “local or other authorities.” Local authorities, such as municipalities and panchayats, were clear inclusions. However, “other authorities” has been subject to far-reaching and evolving interpretations.
The Supreme Court of India, in landmark cases like Rajasthan Electricity Board v. Mohan Lal and Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi, articulated broad principles for determining whether a body qualifies as “State.” Criteria have included:
A celebrated quote from the Chairman of the drafting committee, Dr. B. R. Ambedkar, underscores this:
“It is not enough to ensure fundamental rights in theory; real freedom is measured by the effectiveness of the remedies available against every authority exercising public power, direct or indirect.”
Today, government-owned corporations (like State Electricity Boards) and public universities are typically considered “State” for the purpose of Fundamental Rights. This was not always certain. Earlier, many argued that these bodies—though indirectly run by government—should be exempt. Judicial activism has, however, affirmed their public accountability, which has had wide consequences for employee rights, student freedoms, and access to public goods.
Article 12 draws a clear, if sometimes contested, line between state entities and private actors. Purely private companies, even those performing important economic roles, usually remain outside its purview, unless they fulfill state-like functions (such as providing essential public services under a statutory regime).
In practice, this boundary is constantly tested as more public services are delivered by private or quasi-private actors via outsourcing or public-private partnerships. Ambiguity remains in how to treat hybrid entities whose control and funding involve both public and private sources.
Several Supreme Court decisions have shaped the real-world understanding of Article 12:
This landmark judgment clarified that statutory authorities like the Electricity Boards fall within Article 12, as they are created by law and exercise public powers.
Here, the Court held that companies like Oil and Natural Gas Corporation (ONGC), Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC), and Industrial Finance Corporation of India (IFCI), being significant state-controlled bodies, could be called “State” under Article 12.
The Court articulated functional and structural tests for determining “State” status, including sources of funding, degree of governmental control, and nature of the functions performed. This case set a precedent for treating publicly funded universities and institutions as falling under the definition.
“Every authority created by the Constitution or statute on whom powers are conferred by law is included in the definition of State provided it satisfies the test of being an instrumentality or agency of government.” — Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi
The Court, by contrast, clarified the limitations of Article 12’s reach. The Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) was held not to be “State,” despite its regulatory role in cricket, as it did not meet the control/funding criteria.
Article 12 is not a mere definitional clause. It determines the breadth of governmental accountability and citizen remedies. If a body is classified as “State,” its actions are open to constitutional scrutiny, including:
This has led to practical consequences in labor rights, access to education, policing, and administrative fairness.
From striking down arbitrary rules in university admissions to requiring state-owned banks to respect employee rights, the elasticity of Article 12 shapes millions of lives. Cases involving government hospitals, public transport, and even sports bodies have all grappled with its scope.
Beyond technical boundaries, these interpretations reflect constitutional values—making governance more responsive, transparent, and humane.
As governance models evolve, so too does the meaning of State. Outsourcing, corporatization, and privatization blur lines between government and private entities. Whether agencies created through government contracts or public-private partnerships can be considered “State” often depends on facts and judicial attitudes.
Some jurists have advocated for a more expansive interpretation, to prevent authorities from evading constitutional scrutiny by delegating core functions. Critics warn, however, that too broad a definition could unnecessarily burden private initiative and innovation.
The tension between robust rights enforcement and efficient governance remains lively, and constitutional courts continue to navigate these competing interests.
Article 12 of the Indian Constitution is much more than legal formality; it is the linchpin for the protection and enforcement of Fundamental Rights. By defining “the State” expansively, it provides citizens a powerful tool to hold public bodies accountable, even as notions of public and private shift in the modern era. Courts have ensured that as governance transforms, the constitutional commitment to equality, liberty, and justice is not reduced to mere rhetoric. For every Indian, Article 12 remains a vital guardrail in the ongoing journey toward a just society.
Article 12 defines “the State” for the purpose of enforcing Fundamental Rights, making clear which authorities are obliged to uphold them and can be challenged if they violate such rights.
Article 12 primarily includes governmental bodies, legislatures, and certain public authorities. Purely private entities typically do not fall under its definition, unless they perform functions typically associated with the State.
Courts examine factors such as government control, funding, statutory authority, and the nature of the entity’s activities—specifically, whether they serve a public function.
This definition determines who can be challenged when there is a violation of Fundamental Rights. Without a clear definition, citizens would be uncertain against whom to seek constitutional remedies.
Yes. Judicial interpretation continues to evolve with changes in law, governance models, and the expanding role of public and quasi-public bodies.
Only if the partnership entity meets criteria like public funding, government control, and performance of public functions; otherwise, they may remain outside Article 12’s scope.
Article 377 of the Indian Constitution long stood as one of the nation’s most debated…
Housing is the foundation of social and economic stability—an essential right that shapes the quality…
India’s criminal justice framework relies heavily on the Indian Penal Code (IPC), an extensive legal…
Bail is a cornerstone of criminal jurisprudence, ensuring that an accused person is not unnecessarily…
Public health stands as a cornerstone for any society aspiring to thrive, innovate, and achieve…
India’s roads are among the busiest, most diverse, and sometimes, most chaotic in the world.…