The Doctrine of State Action ensures that fundamental rights are protected against infringements by the State and its instrumentalities, as defined under Article 12 of the Indian Constitution.

MEANING, DEFINITION & EXPLANATION

The Doctrine of State Action pertains to actions taken by the government or its agencies that impact individual rights. In the Indian context, this doctrine ensures that fundamental rights enshrined in Part III of the Constitution are safeguarded against violations by the “State,” as defined in Article 12. Article 12 includes the Government and Parliament of India, the Government and Legislature of each State, and all local or other authorities within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India. This broad definition ensures that any entity performing public functions or receiving substantial government funding is considered the State for the purposes of enforcing fundamental rights.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND / EVOLUTION

The evolution of the Doctrine of State Action in India has been significantly influenced by judicial interpretations, particularly concerning Article 12. The Supreme Court of India has expanded the definition of “State” to include various bodies and institutions. In the landmark case of Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi, (1981) 1 SCC 722, the Court laid down criteria to determine whether an entity is an instrumentality or agency of the State. These criteria include factors such as:

• The extent of financial assistance provided by the government,
• Control over the management and policies of the entity, and
• Whether the entity enjoys a monopoly status conferred by the State.

This expansive interpretation ensures that bodies performing public functions are held accountable for upholding fundamental rights.

COMPARISON WITH OTHER COUNTRIES

In the United States, the State Action Doctrine limits the application of constitutional rights to governmental actions, excluding private conduct unless it involves significant state involvement. This contrasts with the Indian approach, where the definition of “State” under Article 12 is broader, encompassing entities beyond traditional government bodies, thereby extending the reach of fundamental rights. This broader interpretation ensures that even private entities performing public functions or receiving substantial government aid are subject to constitutional scrutiny in India.

ESSENTIALS / ELEMENTS / PRE-REQUISITES

For an action to be considered a “State action” under Indian law, the following elements are essential:

• Government Control: The entity must be under significant government control or influence.
• Public Function: The entity should perform functions of public importance or closely related to governmental functions.
• Financial Assistance: Substantial financial aid or funding from the government to the entity.
• State Conferred Monopoly: The entity enjoys a monopoly status granted by the State.

These criteria were elaborated in the Ajay Hasia case, providing a framework to determine whether an entity falls within the ambit of “State” under Article 12.

LEGAL PROVISIONS / PROCEDURE / SPECIFICATIONS / CRITERIA

Article 12 of the Indian Constitution defines the term “State” for the purposes of Part III, which deals with fundamental rights. This definition is crucial in determining against whom these rights can be enforced. Entities considered as “State” are subject to constitutional scrutiny to ensure they do not infringe upon fundamental rights. The judiciary has played a pivotal role in interpreting this definition to include various bodies and institutions, thereby broadening the scope of entities accountable under the Constitution.

CASE LAWS / PRECEDENTS / OVERRULING JUDGMENTS

1. Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi, (1981) 1 SCC 722:
   In this case, the Supreme Court provided a six-factor test to determine whether an entity is an instrumentality or agency of the State. The factors include:

   • Financial assistance from the State,
   • Control of the management and policies by the State,
   • Monopoly status, and
   • Public importance of functions.

   The Court held that a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, substantially financed and controlled by the government, falls within the definition of “State” under Article 12.

2. Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India, (1979) 3 SCC 489:
   The Supreme Court held that the International Airport Authority, though a separate legal entity, was an instrumentality of the State due to deep and pervasive State control. The Court emphasized that the concept of “State” under Article 12 is not confined to entities created by the Constitution or statute but extends to agencies and instrumentalities of the State.

3. Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology, (2002) 5 SCC 111:
   The Supreme Court reiterated the tests laid down in Ajay Hasia and held that the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) is an instrumentality of the State under Article 12, considering factors like government funding, control, and public function.

DOCTRINES / THEORIES

• Instrumentality Theory:
  This theory posits that any entity that is an instrumentality or agency of the government falls within the definition of “State” under Article 12. The Supreme Court, in Ajay Hasia, provided criteria to determine whether an entity is an instrumentality of the State, ensuring that such bodies are subject to constitutional obligations.

• Public Function Test:
  If a body performs functions of public importance closely related to governmental functions, it is considered a “State” under Article 12. This ensures that entities discharging public functions cannot evade constitutional accountability.

MAXIMS / PRINCIPLES

• “Ubi jus ibi remedium”:
  Where there is a right, there is a remedy. This principle underscores the importance of the Doctrine of State Action, ensuring that violations of fundamental rights by the State or its instrumentalities have legal remedies.

• “Equality before law”:
  Enshrined in Article 14, this principle mandates that the State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India. It ensures that all actions of the State are free from arbitrariness and discrimination.