What is State Flashcards
Electricity Board, Rajasthan v. Mohanlal
AIR 1967 SC 1957
The Supreme Court has held that ‘other authorities’ will include all authorities created by the Constitution or statute on whom powers are conferred by
law and it is not necessary that the authority should engage in performing government functions
In re: Angur Bala Parui
The Calcutta High Court has held that the electricity
authorities being State within the meaning of Article 12, their action can be judicially reviewed by this Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
University of Madras v. Shanta Bai,
(AIR 1954 Mad. 67).
It has also been held that a university is an authority
Haroobhai v. State of Gujarat
(AIR 1967, Guj. 229).
The Gujarat High Court has held that the President is “State” when making an order under Article 359 of the Constitution
Bidi Supply Co. v. Union of India
AIR 1956 SC 479
State was interpreted to include its Income-tax department.
Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagatram,
(AIR 1975 SC 1331)
and
R.D. Shetty v. International Airports Authority
(AIR 1979 SC 1628)
Corporations acting as instrumentality or agency
of government would become ‘State’ because obviously they are subjected to the same limitations in the field
of constitutional or administrative law as the government itself, though in the eye of law they would be distinct and independent legal entities.
Satish Nayak v. Cochin Stock Exchange Ltd.
1995 Comp LJ 35
The Kerala High Court held that since a Stock Exchange was independent of Government control and was not
discharging any public duty, it cannot be treated as ‘other authority’ under Article 12.
Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib, AIR 1981 SC 481
The Supreme Court has enunciated the following test for
determining whether an entity is an instrumentality or agency of the State:
(1) If the entire share capital of the Corporation is held by the Government, it would go a long way towards indicating that the corporation is an instrumentality or agency of the Government.
(2) Where the financial assistance of the State is so much as to meet almost the entire expenditure of the corporation it would afford some indication of the corporation being impregnated with government character.
(3) Whether the corporation enjoys a monopoly status which is conferred or protected by the State.
(4) Existence of deep and pervasive State control may afford an indication that the corporation is a State agency or an instrumentality.
(5) If the functions of the corporation are of public importance and closely related to government functions, it would be a relevant factor in classifying a corporation as an instrumentality or agency of government.
(6) If a department of government is transferred to a corporation, it would be a strong factor supporting an inference of the corporation being an instrumentality or agency of government.
Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of
Chemical Biology
(2002) SC
A seven Judge Bench of the Supreme Court by a majority of 5:2 held that CSIR is an instrumentality of “the State” falling within the scope of Article 12.
The multiple test which is to be applied to ascertain the character of a body as falling within Article 12 or outside is to ascertain the nature of financial, functional and administrative control of the State over it and whether it is dominated by the State Government and the control can be said to be so deep and pervasive so as to satisfy the court “of brooding presence of the Government” on the activities of the body concerned.
Zee Telefilms Ltd. v. Union of India
(2005) 4 SCC 649
The Supreme Court applying the tests laid down in
Pardeep Kumar Biswas case held that the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) was not State for
purposes of Article 12 because it was not shown to be financially, functionally or administratively dominated
by or under the control of the Government and control exercised by the Government was not pervasive but
merely regulatory in nature.
A.R. Antualay v. R.S. Nayak,
(1988) 2 SCC 602
Judiciary although an organ of State like the executive and the legislature, is not specifically mentioned in
Article 12. However, the position is that where the Court performs judicial functions, e.g. determination of
scope of fundamental rights vis-a-vis legislature or executive action, it will not occasion the infringement of
fundamental rights and therefore it will not come under ‘State’ in such situation
