We will be dealing with Article 12 of The Indian Constitution which focuses on defining the term "State" as we all know that the fundamental rights guaranteed by the constitution is available against the state and not against other private individuals to enforce their rights as stated in part III of the constitution. This is because individuals need protection from the state, protection from private individuals is available in the ordinary law of the land. This is to ensure we have the freedoms as guaranteed against any state action.

Objective And Scope
This is to give an idea to people regarding different interpretations of the term "State" as discussed in several cases so the people can know how to enforce their rights and freedoms when it comes to state government violation of individual's rights. This term is used in many places under part III of the constitution so we must know what all bodies and authorities fall under it so as to come to a remedy quickly. The scope is limited to the definition of the word "State" as discussed under several cases and articles only.

Research Methodology
This study is purely doctrinal in nature which is based on secondary sources of information like articles, textbooks etc.

Introduction
The purpose of the state, under the Constitution of India, is to establish a welfare society. The framers of the Constitution were inspired by the idea of a welfare state. The Constitution has imposed a positive duty on the state in the form of directive principles of state policy and a negative duty on the state in the form of fundamental rights. The fundamental rights are contained in Part III of the Constitution and the directive principles are enumerated in Part IV of the Constitution.

Most of the Constitutions around the world guarantee fundamental rights only against the state, that is, the citizens may not be able to seek remedy in court if their fundamental rights are violated by private individuals but can approach the courts if their rights are infringed by the state. This holds true even where the Constitution does not expressly state that the fundamental rights are guaranteed only against the state and that the fundamental rights would be enforceable only against the State., yet the judiciary has interpreted it to mean that the fundamental rights can be enforced not against private individuals but only the state.

It becomes important and necessary to define the meaning of the term 'state' precisely and concisely. Under the Indian Constitution, the State has been defined under Article 12, which is the opening Article of Part III of the Constitution of India which enumerates the fundamental rights.

While defining the term 'state', it is necessary to note that fundamental rights can be violated by the state indirectly as well as directly. In indirect infringement, the rights of the citizens are infringed upon through the agencies and officials acting on behalf of the state. In direct infringement, the government infringes fundamental rights through its legislative or other powers. Thus, it is necessary to interpret the state in an inclusive manner to protect the rights of the citizens from being infringed by any arbitrary action of the state.

The Term: State:
The most basic assumption behind fundamental rights is that the government has a massive number of resources available with them for the prosecution and exploitation of individuals, and the individuals are therefore entitled to some protection from misuse of those powers by the government. Article 12 defines "State" as under different Articles of part III of the Constitution. It says that unless the context otherwise requires the term "State" includes the following: -

1. The Government and Parliament of India (The Executive and Legislature of the Union)
2. The Government and the Legislature of each State (Executive and Legislature of States)
3. All local or other authorities within the territory of India
4. All local and other authorities under the control of the Government of India

The term "State" thus includes legislative as well as the executive organs of the Union and States. It is, therefore, the action of these bodies.

Parliament:

The parliament comprises of the President of India, the lower house of the parliament that is the Lok Sabha as well as the upper house of the Parliament, that is the Rajya Sabha.

Executive:

It is that organ which implements the policies of the government and the laws passed by the legislature. The rise of the welfare state has tremendously increased the functions of the state, and in reality, of the executive. In common usage, people tend to identify the government with the executive. In contemporary times, there has been a significant increase in the role and power of the executive in every state. The executive includes the Governor, Cabinet Ministers, President, Police, Bureaucrats, etc.

Legislature:

The legislature is that organ of the government which enacts the laws of the government. It is the agency which has the obligation to formulate the will of the state and vest it with legal authority and force. The legislature enjoys a very important and special position in every democratic state. It is the assembly of the elected representatives of the people and represents the power of the people and national public opinion.

Government:

The legislative branch or law-making and executive or administrative branch and judicial branch or law enforcement and organizations of society. Rajya Sabha (the upper house) and Lok Sabha (the lower house) form the legislative branch. Indian President being the head of the state, exercises his or her power directly or through officers who are subordinate to him. The Supreme Court, High Courts, and many other civil, criminal, and family courts at the district level which form the Judiciary.

State Legislature:

The State Legislature is the legislative body at the state level. It comprises the state legislative council and the state legislative assembly.

Local Authorities
It is important to define Authorities and as per the Webster's Dictionary, "Authority" means a person or body exercising power to command. When read under Article 12, the word authority means the power to make laws (or orders, regulations, byelaws, notification etc.) which have the force of law and it also includes the power to enforce those laws.

Local Authority: As per the General Clauses Act, 1897: "Local Authority shall mean a municipal committee, district board, body of commissioner or other authority legally entitled to or entrusted by the Government within the control or management of a municipal or local fund." The term Local authority includes the following:

Local government: According to Entry 5 of the List II of VII Schedule 'local government' includes an improvement trust, municipal corporation, mining settlement authorities, district boards, and other local authorities for the purpose of village administration or local self-government.

Village Panchayat: In case of Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab, it was held that village panchayat is also included within the meaning of the term local authority.

In the case of Mohammad Yasin vs. Town Area Committee, the Supreme Court laid down some guidelines for bodies that to be characterized as a 'local authority' the authority concerned must:

• Have a separate legal existence as a corporate body.
• Must be legally an independent entity.
• Function in a defined area.
• Be wholly or partly, directly, or indirectly, elected by the inhabitants of the area.
• Enjoy a certain degree of autonomy (complete or partial).
• Be entrusted by statute with such governmental functions and duties as are usually entrusted to locally (like health, education, water, town planning, markets, transportation, etc.).
• Have the power to raise funds for the furtherance of its activities and fulfilment of its objectives by levying taxes, rates, charges, or fees.

Other Authorities
The term 'other authorities' in Article 12 has not been defined anywhere. Neither in the general clauses Act nor in the Constitution. Therefore, its interpretation is somewhat difficult, and judiciary has the power to interpret it. It has undergone many changes over time.

The functions of the government can either be performed by the officials and governmental departments or with the help of autonomous bodies which exist outside the departmental structure. Such autonomous bodies may include companies, corporations etc.

So, for the purpose of determining what 'other authorities' fall under the scope of State, the judiciary has given several judgements as per the facts and circumstances of different cases.

In the University of Madras v. Shanta Bai, the Madras High Court evolved the principle of 'ejusdem generis' i.e., of the similar nature. It means that only those authorities are covered under the term 'other authorities' who perform sovereign or governmental functions. Further, it cannot include persons, juristic or natural, for example, Unaided universities.

In the case of Ujjammabai v. the State of U.P., the court rejected the above restrictive scope and held that the 'ejusdem generis' rule could not be resorted while interpreting 'other authorities. The bodies which are named as under Article 12 have no common genus running through them and that they cannot be placed in one single category on any rational basis.

Lastly, in Rajasthan Electricity Board v. Mohan Lal, the Supreme Court held that 'other authorities' would include all authorities created by statute or the constitution on whom powers are conferred by law. Such statutory authority need not be engaged in performing sovereign or government functions. The court emphasized that it is not required that the power conferred on the body is of a commercial nature or not.

Doctrine Of Instrumentality Of State:
In the modern world, the state has a lot of functions to perform. In order to discharge its duties and functions, the state operates through certain instrumentalities. The instrumentalities also fall within the definition of the expression 'state' as used in Article 12. Instrumentalities are the means through which the state discharges its functions and the doctrine of instrumentality provides that the agencies through which it discharges its functions are also to be considered embodiments of the state.

For example, Article 298 of the Indian Constitution empowers the central as well as state governments to carry on trade and business. The government carries on trade with the help of certain corporations and these corporations are called the instrumentalities of the state.

In Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India and Ors. (1979), the Supreme Court held that corporations acting as instrumentalities or agents of the government would fall within the meaning of the expression 'other authorities' under Article 12.

Test To Determine Instrumentality:
To determine whether an entity is an agency or instrumentality, the following factors are to be taken into consideration:

1. Share capital and financial assistance: If the whole of the share capital of the corporation is owned by the central or any of the state governments, then it will show that the corporation is an agency or instrumentality of the state. The state may also provide financial assistance to the corporation.
2. State control: If the central or any of the state governments exercises pervasive control over the entity, then it can be concluded that the corporation is an agency of the state.
3. Monopoly: Certain corporations enjoy monopolies in their respective markets because the state prevents other corporations from operating in the same market. Thus, if an entity enjoys monopoly status due to the restrictions imposed by law enacted by the state, then such entity is likely to be considered an agency or instrumentality of the state.
4. Functions: The nature of the functions performed by the corporation is another relevant factor. If the corporation discharges or performs such functions which are largely of a public nature, then such a corporation will be considered as an instrumentality.

Judiciary As A State
The judgements pronounced by the courts cannot be challenged on the ground that they violate fundamental rights of a person. But, it has been observed that orders passed by the courts in their administrative capacity (including by the Supreme Court) have regularly been challenged as being violative of fundamental rights. The distinction between the judicial and non-judicial functions of the courts can help determine this. When the courts perform their functions which are non-judicial in nature, they will fall within the definition of the 'State'.

But, when the courts perform their judicial functions, they will not fall within the scope or definition of the 'State'. So, it can be said that an administrative decision or a rule made by the judiciary can be challenged as being violative of fundamental rights if that is supported by facts but the judicial decision of a court cannot be challenged as being violative of fundamental rights. This is because of the distinction between the non-judicial and judicial functions of the courts.

Conclusion
The Constitution of India gives fundamental right to the citizens and also imposes the duty on the state to ensure that the fundamental rights of the citizens are protected. The court through its interpretations has widened the scope of the term State to include a variety of statutory and non-statutory bodies under this umbrella term. The objective to determine what will fall within the meaning of state is to assign the party on whom the duty is imposed for the protection of these rights.

For every fundamental right, it is the duty of the state to ensure that it does not get violated. The definition of state as under Article 12 has several words which may not have definite or fixed meanings, like, words such as control of government, local authorities, other authorities, etc. and as seen in the above sections, the courts have, through the course of their judgements, described the extent of the article by laying down a test and discussing the meaning of the terms.

Table Of Cases:

1. P.D. Shamdasani v. Central Bank of India (1951): Some shares of the petitioner were sold by the Central Bank of India to recover the debt owed by the petitioner. This was challenged on the ground of being violative of Articles 31 and 19 (now omitted). The Supreme Court of India dismissed the petition and observed that since the rights of the petitioner were violated by a private bank, remedy cannot be sought under Article 32. One can resort to Article 32 only in cases where the right is infringed by the state. Remedies against private parties are available as under the ordinary law.
2. Kaushal Kishore v. State of U.P. (2023): The Supreme Court held that fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 19 and 21 respectively can be enforced against the state as well as non-state actors.
3. Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab: It was held that within the meaning of the term local authority, village panchayat is also included.
4. Mohammad Yasin v. Town Area Committee: The Supreme Court held that to be characterized as a 'local authority' the authority concerned must satisfy the following conditions:
   • Have a separate legal existence as a corporate body.
   • Not be a mere government agency but must be legally an independent entity.
   • Function in a defined area.
   • Be wholly or partly, directly, or indirectly, elected by the inhabitants of the area.
   • Enjoy a certain degree of autonomy (complete or partial).
   • Be entrusted by statute with such governmental functions and duties as are usually entrusted to locally (like health, education, water, town planning, markets, transportation, etc.).
   • Have the power to raise funds for the furtherance of its activities and fulfilment of its objectives by levying taxes, rates, charges, or fees.
5. University of Madras v. Shanta Bai: The Madras High Court evolved the principle of 'ejusdem generis' i.e., of the like nature. It means that only those authorities are covered under the term 'other authorities' which perform sovereign or governmental functions. Further, it cannot include persons, juristic or natural, for example, unaided universities.
6. Ujjammabai v. the State of U.P.: The court rejected the above restrictive scope and held that the 'ejusdem generis' rule could not be resorted to in interpreting 'other authorities'. The bodies named as under Article 12 have no common genus running through them and that they cannot be placed in one single category on any rational basis.
7. Rajasthan Electricity Board v. Mohan Lal: The Supreme Court held that the term 'other authorities' would include all authorities created by the statute or the constitution on whom the powers are conferred by law. Such statutory authority need not be engaged in performing sovereign or government functions. The court emphasized that it is not required that the power conferred on the body is of a commercial nature or not.
8. Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India and Ors. (1979): The Supreme Court held that corporations acting as instrumentalities or agents of the government would fall within the meaning of the term 'other authorities' under Article 12.
9. Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagatram (1975): The Court observed that it is not required for the state to provide direct financial aid to the corporation. The state may provide tax exemptions or other forms of indirect financial assistance to the corporation. Indirect financial aid is also a relevant factor while determining whether a corporation is an agency or instrumentality of the State or not.
10. Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra: The Supreme Court held that a judicial decision pronounced by a judge of competent jurisdiction in or in relation to a matter brought before him for adjudication cannot affect the fundamental rights of the citizens since that is what the judicial decision purports to do, which is to decide the controversy between the parties brought before the court and nothing else. Therefore, such a judicial decision of the court cannot be challenged under Article 13 of the constitution.
11. Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib (1980): An Engineering College was managed by a society which was registered under the Jammu and Kashmir Registration of Societies Act, 1898. The Court tried to determine whether the society registered as under the Societies Registration Act qualified to be a state as under the definition of Article 12. The Supreme Court held that the society which had administered the college was under the definition of state as under Article 12 and held that the society was an instrumentality of the state.

Bibliography:

• Universal's The Constitution of India published by Universal Law Publishing Co.
• J.N. Pandey "Constitutional Law Of India" published by Central Law Agency

Online Sources:
Case details obtained from:

• https://www.northeastlawjournal.com/post/article-12-constitution-of-india-what-is-a-state