In the most recent judgement for Sanjaya Bahel v. Union of India & Others, the Delhi High Court has ruled that the United Nations does not qualify as a “State” as per Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, it is not subject to the Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The verdict asserts that under no circumstances can an organization affiliated with the United Nations – an international entity, be considered a vehicle or agency of the Indian Government.
Interpretation of Fundamental Rights in Indian Constitution
Part III of the Indian Constitution lays down a comprehensive list of fundamental rights, spanning Article 12 to Article 35. The intent behind including these rights is to facilitate a just society governed by law rather than by an autocrat. The potential abuse of power necessitates these rights to be constitutionally protected from the state’s actions. To better understand this framework, it is crucial to analyze the definition of “state”. Article 12 offers this definition: ‘The State’ encompasses the Government and Parliament of India, the Government, and Legislature of each state, including all local or other authorities within India or under the management of the Indian Government.
The Evolution of the Term ‘Other Authorities’
The term ‘other authorities’ mentioned in Article 12 has witnessed a change in interpretation over time. Initially, a restrictive interpretation was adopted where only the authorities executing governmental or sovereign functions were included. However, with a more liberal interpretation, it is no longer obligatory for an authority to engage in sovereign or governmental operations to qualify as the state. Bodies such as the State Electricity Board, LIC, ONGC, and IFC are also incorporated under the term ‘other authorities’.
The Five-Point Test Established by Justice P.N Bhagwati
The five-point test is used increasingly to determine whether a body qualifies as an agency or instrument of the state. The test includes the following points:
* Whether the state is the primary funding source for the body in question.
* The level of control the state has over the body.
* If the functions carried out by the body are of public importance or governmental in nature.
* If a government department was transferred to a corporation.
* If the body enjoys a monopoly status conferred or protected by the state.
Justice Bhagwati underlined that this test is purely illustrative and not conclusive, cautioning that it should be approached with care.
Judiciary and its Position in Article 12
The judiciary is not explicitly mentioned in Article 12, leading to divergent opinions on the matter. Including the judiciary entirely under Article 12 implies that the guardian of fundamental rights is capable of infringing them, resulting in considerable confusion.
Role of Judiciary: A Delicate Balance
The Apex Court reaffirmed in Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra that no judicial proceeding could breach any Fundamental rights. It was established that superior courts of justice do not fall within the definition of ‘state’ or ‘other authorities’ under Article 12. This implies that a Superior Judicial body is not considered a ‘State’ when acting “judicially”. However, when performing administrative tasks like conducting exams, it falls under the definition of ‘State’, and remedies can be sought if fundamental rights are violated in such circumstances.
| Body | Category under Article 12 |
|---|---|
| UN and its agencies | Not a State |
| Government departments | State |
| Corporations transferred from Government departments | State |
| Superior Judicial body (when acting judicially) | Not a State |
| Superior Judicial body (when performing administrative tasks) | State |
