Article 12 of the Constitution of India defines "the State" for the purposes of Part III (Fundamental Rights), including the Government and Parliament of India, the Government and Legislature of each State, all local authorities, and all "other authorities" within or under the control of the Government of India. Under Indian law, Article 12 is the threshold provision that determines which entities are bound by fundamental rights obligations — only actions of the "State" as defined here can be challenged under Articles 14 to 32.
Legal definition
The Constitution provides the full text of Article 12:
Article 12: "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 definition is inclusive, not exhaustive — signalled by the word "includes." This means that the categories expressly listed (Central Government, Parliament, State Governments, State Legislatures, local authorities) are illustrative, and the phrase "other authorities" operates as a residuary category broad enough to encompass bodies not expressly named. The critical question in most Article 12 disputes is whether a particular body — a public sector undertaking, a university, a cooperative society, or a statutory corporation — falls within the phrase "other authorities."
How courts have interpreted this term
The Supreme Court has progressively expanded the scope of "other authorities" through a series of landmark decisions:
Rajasthan State Electricity Board v. Mohan Lal [AIR 1967 SC 1857]
In this early decision, a seven-judge Constitution Bench held that the expression "other authorities" in Article 12 is wide enough to include all authorities created by the Constitution or statute on whom powers are conferred by law. The Court rejected the narrow interpretation that "other authorities" must be ejusdem generis with "Government" and "Legislature," and held that any authority created by statute and entrusted with governmental or quasi-governmental functions qualifies as "State."
Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India [(1979) 3 SCC 489]
The Supreme Court formulated the "instrumentality or agency" test to determine whether a body is "State" under Article 12. The Court held that where the Government has a deep and pervasive control over a body, it would be an instrumentality or agency of the Government and therefore "State." The relevant factors include: whether the entire share capital is held by the Government, the extent of State financial assistance, whether the body enjoys a monopoly status conferred by the State, deep and pervasive governmental control over management and policies, whether the functions are of public importance closely related to governmental functions, and whether a department of the Government has been transferred to the body.
Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi [(1981) 1 SCC 722]
This decision consolidated and refined the Shetty tests into a structured six-factor framework. The Supreme Court held that the Regional Engineering College, Srinagar (a society registered under the Societies Registration Act) was "State" under Article 12 because it was substantially funded by the Government, its governing body was appointed by the Government, and it performed an important public function (technical education). The Court emphasised that no single factor is determinative — what matters is the cumulative effect. If the totality of circumstances indicates that the body is an instrumentality or agency of the Government, it falls within Article 12 regardless of its legal form (statutory corporation, Government company, or registered society).
Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology [(2002) 5 SCC 111]
A seven-judge Bench reconsidered the tests and held that the question is whether, in light of the cumulative facts, the body is financially, functionally, and administratively dominated by or under the control of the Government. The Court held that mere government funding or regulatory control does not automatically make a body "State" — the test is whether the Government exercises such pervasive control that the body lacks independent existence or autonomy in its day-to-day functioning.
Types of entities covered under Article 12
Article 12 covers several distinct categories:
- Government of India and State Governments — the executive arm at both levels, including all ministries and departments.
- Parliament and State Legislatures — the legislative arm, though fundamental rights claims against legislative action typically arise as challenges to statutes themselves.
- Local authorities — municipalities, panchayats, cantonment boards, and district boards.
- Other authorities — the most litigated category, covering statutory corporations (LIC, ONGC, SAIL), Government companies (under the Companies Act), autonomous bodies and universities (IITs, IIMs, UGC), cooperative societies with deep State control, and any instrumentality or agency of the State.
Why this matters
Article 12 is the gateway provision for all fundamental rights litigation. Before any petitioner can invoke Articles 14, 19, 21, or any other Part III right against an entity, they must first establish that the respondent qualifies as "State" under Article 12. If the respondent is a purely private body with no State character, fundamental rights under Part III are not directly enforceable against it (though this position has been nuanced by the doctrine of horizontal application in limited contexts).
For practitioners, the Article 12 determination is often the first and most contested preliminary issue in writ petitions. If the respondent successfully argues that it is not "State," the writ petition is dismissed on maintainability grounds without reaching the merits of the fundamental rights claim. This makes the Ajay Hasia six-factor test a critical analytical tool in constitutional litigation. The test is applied holistically — no single factor is decisive, and courts examine the totality of the relationship between the Government and the entity.
A common misconception is that any body receiving Government funds is automatically "State" under Article 12. This is incorrect — the Supreme Court in Pradeep Kumar Biswas clarified that mere receipt of Government grants or regulation by a statutory framework does not, by itself, make a body an instrumentality of the State. What is required is pervasive governmental control over the body's management, policies, and functioning.
Related terms
Broader concepts:
Enforcement mechanism:
Rights enforceable against the State:
Related doctrines:
Frequently asked questions
Is a private company "State" under Article 12?
A purely private company is not "State" under Article 12 merely because it operates in a regulated industry or receives Government contracts. However, if the Government holds the entire or dominant share capital, exercises deep and pervasive control over its management and policies, and the company performs functions closely related to governmental functions, it may be held to be an instrumentality of the State. The test laid down in Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib (1981) requires examining the cumulative effect of all relevant factors.
Can fundamental rights be enforced against private individuals?
Fundamental rights under Part III are, in principle, enforceable only against the "State" as defined in Article 12. However, Articles 15(2), 17, 23, and 24 are exceptions that operate against private persons as well. Additionally, the Supreme Court has, through expansive interpretation of Article 21, imposed certain obligations on private entities in specific contexts, such as the right to privacy and the right against sexual harassment.
What is the difference between "local authority" and "other authority" in Article 12?
"Local authority" refers to bodies like municipalities, panchayats, and cantonment boards that exercise governmental functions within a defined local area and have the power to levy taxes or rates. "Other authority" is a broader residuary category that captures all other entities — statutory corporations, Government companies, autonomous bodies, and registered societies — that function as instrumentalities or agencies of the Government, regardless of whether they exercise local governmental powers.
Are courts "State" under Article 12?
Courts and tribunals are generally considered part of the "State" for Article 12 purposes, as they exercise sovereign judicial power. However, the practical significance is limited because challenges to judicial orders are typically made through the appellate process rather than through writ petitions alleging fundamental rights violations by the court itself.
This entry is part of the Veritect Indian Legal Glossary, a comprehensive reference of Indian legal terminology grounded in statutory text and judicial interpretation.
Last updated: 2026-03-27. Veritect provides this content for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice.