Article 12: Definition of State
Whenever "state" is used in this chapter, it should mean the following:
- government and parliament
- government and legislature of each state
- all local and other authorities within the territory of India or under the control of the government of India would come under the part of the state
Explanation
It means all the Central Legislature, all the State Legislature, all executive of Centre and State, all local authorities, Panchayati Raj, Municipality, and other authorities like LIC, ONGC, statutory organization, non-statutory organization, etc., come under the definition of State.
Criteria to become a State
The Supreme Court in the R.D. Shetty v International Airport Authority case has identified five merit criteria that determine whether an authority comes under the state or not:
- The entire share capital is held by the government
- Where financial assistance of the state so much so as to almost meet the entire expenditure of the corporation.
- The monopoly status which the state has conferred or it is protected.
- Deep and perversive control of the State.
- A departmental function or a department of government has been transferred to the corporation and the functioning of the corporation is of public importance.
Then if these five criteria quantify an entity to be part of the state. Later in the Ajay Hasia v Khalid Mujib 1981 case, the Supreme Court said that the recognized criteria in the Shetty case are valid and would also depend upon the individual to individual case but those five criteria are the principal criteria.
Is NCRT comes under state definition?
In the landmark case of Chandra Mohan Khanna vs NCERT in 1993, the Supreme Court said NCRT does not come under the definition of a state.
Is BCCI comes under state definition?
In the landmark case of Zee Telefilms v. Union of India (2005), the Supreme Court said BCCI does not come under the definition of state, hence not part of the state.
Is Judiciary comes under state definition?
Supreme Court in the Naresh-Shridhar-Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra, 1966, the Supreme Court said that judicial orders are not state action. Later the Supreme Court in Rupa Hurra v. Ashok Hurra said that and reframed the principle laid down by Naresh-Mirajkar case but also said that administrative function and action can still be tested, although not judicial function.
Finally in the Government of India v. Union of India, the Supreme Court of India outlined that there are two types of functions that the judiciary performs:
- Judicial Function
- Administrative Function
When the judiciary is performing a judicial function it can be challenged through a process like revision, appeal, etc. but when the judiciary is performing an administrative function like conducting an examination, conduct of employees, etc., they are doing an administrative function. Therefore it comes under part of the state.