The Constitution of India has meticulously woven an intricate legal tapestry that establishes the contours of governance, rights, and duties. Article 12, which forms the bedrock of Part III of the Constitution, defines the term "State" in the context of Fundamental Rights, a provision that has evoked wide-ranging interpretations from the judiciary. The jurisprudential evolution of the term "State" is pivotal in determining the ambit of rights enforceable against state entities, and in shaping the scope of judicial review under Article 32 and Article 226.

Through seminal judgments like University of Madras v. Shantabai (1954), Ujjambai v. State of UP (1961), Rajasthan Electrical Board v. Mohan Lal (1967), Sukhdev v. Bhagatram (1975), Sabhajit Tewary v. Union of India (1975), R.D. Shetty v. International Airport Authority (1979), Som Prakash v. Union of India (1980), and Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib (1981), the judiciary has expanded, narrowed, and recalibrated the definition of the State. This article provides a detailed analysis of these cases, juxtaposing their interpretations against the evolving socio-political and legal ethos, while also considering the statutory framework in both historical and contemporary contexts.

Introduction
Article 12 of the Indian Constitution holds cardinal importance in the realm of Fundamental Rights. The interpretation of "State" under this Article plays a decisive role in delineating the entities against which the infringement of fundamental rights can be claimed. The text of 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 jurisprudence on the interpretation of the term "State" has gradually expanded from its narrow, positivist conception to embrace a wider range of institutions that perform public functions or wield governmental powers. This has been accomplished through an expansive and purposive judicial approach to ensure that the fundamental rights enshrined in Part III are enforceable not only against traditional organs of the government but also against institutions that operate with the authority of the state.

Article 12: Definitional and Jurisprudential Evolution

1. University of Madras v. Shantabai (1954): The University of Madras v. Shantabai case is the earliest instance where the courts grappled with the question of whether a university could be considered a "State" under Article 12. The Madras High Court held that a university, being an autonomous institution, does not qualify as the "State." It took a literal interpretation, confining "State" strictly to government departments and organs directly under the government's control. This approach, however, was soon reconsidered by the Supreme Court in subsequent cases as it became clear that such a narrow interpretation would leave a large number of public authorities outside the purview of judicial review, potentially rendering fundamental rights illusory.
    
2. Ujjambai v. State of UP (1961): The Supreme Court in Ujjambai v. State of UP took a pivotal step by widening the ambit of Article 12. It held that bodies that are not explicitly part of the government but are under its substantial control and perform public duties must also be regarded as "State" for the purposes of Part III of the Constitution. This case moved beyond the mechanical view of the term "State," embracing a functional approach, where the nature of the body's functions and its control by the government became the test for determining its status under Article 12.
    
3. Rajasthan State Electricity Board v. Mohan Lal (1967): In Rajasthan State Electricity Board v. Mohan Lal, the Supreme Court was confronted with the question of whether a statutory corporation like the Rajasthan Electricity Board could be considered a "State" under Article 12. The Court decisively held that "other authorities" mentioned in Article 12 should not be restricted to purely governmental bodies but should also include those statutory authorities that are vested with governmental powers and perform governmental or quasi-governmental functions. The Court expanded the definition of "State" to include all entities that were created by statute and endowed with powers of the State, thus reinforcing the functionalist approach.
    
4. Sukhdev v. Bhagatram (1975): The case of Sukhdev v. Bhagatram marked another leap in the interpretative exercise under Article 12. The issue here was whether statutory corporations like the Oil and Natural Gas Commission (ONGC), Life Insurance Corporation (LIC), and Industrial Finance Corporation (IFC), which were performing functions of national importance and established by the statute, could be considered "State." The Supreme Court held that such corporations, given their statutory foundation, public duties, and governmental control, must be considered as part of the State. The judgment, delivered by Justice Mathew, emphasized the role of such corporations in discharging state functions and reiterated the principle that wherever there is governmental control and public duty, the body concerned would qualify as "State."
    
5. Sabhajit Tewary v. Union of India (1975): The decision in Sabhajit Tewary v. Union of India appeared as a momentary deviation from the expanding trend of the definition of the "State." In this case, the Supreme Court held that the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), though receiving substantial funding from the government, was not an authority under Article 12 because it was not substantially controlled by the government in its day-to-day functioning. This narrow interpretation, however, was soon to be corrected in subsequent cases that reaffirmed the expanding trend of Article 12.
    
6. R.D. Shetty v. International Airport Authority (1979): The landmark judgment in R.D. Shetty v. International Airport Authority significantly contributed to the functionalist understanding of "State." The Court, in this case, held that the International Airport Authority, though an autonomous body, was performing public duties and was subject to significant governmental control. Therefore, it qualified as "State" under Article 12. The judgment emphasized that the true test was whether the body had been entrusted with functions of public importance and whether there was pervasive governmental control over its functioning. The authority need not be a statutory body; even corporations established under ordinary law could be regarded as "State" if they satisfied these criteria.
    
7. Som Prakash v. Union of India (1980): In Som Prakash v. Union of India, the Supreme Court extended the definition of "State" to include even corporations like Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (BPCL), which were engaged in commercial activities but were under substantial control of the government. The Court held that the determining factor was not the nature of the activities (commercial or governmental), but rather the level of governmental control and the public nature of the functions performed by such entities.
    
8. Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib (1981):The decision in Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib further solidified the principle that a body need not be a statutory corporation to be considered "State." In this case, the Court laid down the now-famous "functional test" or "instrumentality test" to determine whether an entity could be classified as "State" under Article 12. The test involved examining factors such as the extent of governmental financial assistance, governmental control, whether the entity performs functions of public importance, and whether it operates as an agent of the State. The case also emphasized that fundamental rights could be enforced against bodies that, while not strictly part of the government, were performing governmental functions and were subject to significant governmental control.

Statutory Framework and Legal Analysis
The Text of Article 12
Article 12 adopts an inclusive definition of the term "State" by enumerating several organs and authorities that constitute the State. This includes the government and Parliament of India, the government and the legislature of the states, local authorities, and "other authorities" within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India.

The expression "other authorities" has been the subject of considerable judicial interpretation. While the phrase initially implied only those bodies that perform governmental functions or are created by the government, later judicial pronouncements broadened its scope to include entities that perform public duties or functions of public importance, regardless of their formal legal status.

Evolutionary Perspective
The jurisprudence surrounding Article 12 has evolved from a literal and restrictive interpretation, as seen in the University of Madras case, to a more expansive and functionalist approach, which takes into account the nature of the functions performed by the entity and the degree of governmental control over its operations. The concept of "State" now covers a broad range of bodies, including statutory corporations, government-owned companies, and even private entities that discharge public functions or perform public duties.

The functionalist approach, as seen in Ajay Hasia and R.D. Shetty, reflects the Court's concern that the protection of fundamental rights should not be evaded by the government delegating its functions to autonomous bodies or private entities. The aim is to ensure that citizens' fundamental rights are enforceable not only against traditional governmental authorities but also against any body or institution that exercises governmental power or performs a public function.

Contemporary Legal Implications
With the advent of privatization, liberalization, and globalization, the question of what constitutes "State" assumes renewed significance. The role of private entities in delivering public services, the rise of public-private partnerships, and the increasing delegation of governmental functions to private corporations necessitate a dynamic understanding of Article 12. The judiciary continues to play a crucial role in ensuring that fundamental rights are not rendered illusory by interpreting the term "State" in a manner that reflects contemporary realities.

Conclusion
The interpretation of the term "State" under Article 12 of the Indian Constitution has undergone a remarkable transformation from a narrow, government-centric view to an expansive, functionalist understanding. This evolution underscores the judiciary's commitment to ensuring that fundamental rights are not confined to a rigid and traditional notion of the State but are enforceable against any entity that wields governmental power or performs public duties.

As demonstrated by the landmark cases from University of Madras v. Shantabai to Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib, the judiciary has consistently sought to preserve the efficacy of fundamental rights by broadening the definition of the State to include statutory bodies, government-owned corporations, and even private entities when they discharge public functions. The broadening of the scope of "State" under Article 12 reflects the dynamic and evolving nature of the Constitution, ensuring that its fundamental guarantees remain robust and effective in protecting individual rights in a rapidly changing socio-political and economic landscape.

References:

• University of Madras v. Shantabai, AIR 1954 Mad 67.
• Ujjambai v. State of UP, AIR 1962 SC 1621.
• Rajasthan State Electricity Board v. Mohan Lal, AIR 1967 SC 1857.
• Sukhdev v. Bhagatram, (1975) 1 SCC 421.
• Sabhajit Tewary v. Union of India, AIR 1975 SC 1329.
• R.D. Shetty v. International Airport Authority, (1979) 3 SCC 489.
• Som Prakash v. Union of India, (1981) 1 SCC 449.
• Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib, (1981) 1 SCC 722.