CONSTITUTION PROJECT

ARTICLE-12 OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION

DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

VISHAKAPATNAM

NAME OF THE STUDENT: Ch. Gowri Rajeswari

REGISTRATION NUMBER: a18LLB129

1|Page
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would sincerely like to put forward my heartfelt appreciation to our respected Economics
professor, Mr. Nageswara Rao for giving me a golden opportunity to take up this project
regarding ARTICLE-12 OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION. I have tried my best to
collect information about the given project topic.

2|Page
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

 Introduction

 Authorities

 Local Authorities

 Other Authorities

 Authorities Under The Control Of The Government

 Whether “State” Includes The Judiciary

3|Page
INTRODUCTION:

The objective behind the defining the state was to provide an impetus to the effective
enforcement of fundamental rights. The expression state under article 12 enumerates the
authorities against which fundamental rights can be claimed and also it binds such authorities
with the obligation to abide by and to respect the fundamental rights of the people. Defining
state was necessary as the fundamental rights are expressly guaranteed under the state.

The definition of the term state under Article 12 is inclusive and not exhaustive. The
language of article contains two important flexibility term s to cope up with the challenges
posed by the society. The first one is the inclusive nature of the definition, which is evident
through the use of the expression includes which can be used to accommodate the new
entities within the scope of the article 12. Therefore authorities not specified in the article
may also fall within it if they otherwise satisfy the characteristic of the state or if they
perform any functions ordinarily performed by the government. The second is the use of
expression “unless the context otherwise” that allows the use of the concept of state in
different situations in different manner and context. For instance, the context of article 21,
providing right to life or personal liberty, requires the widest and frequent use of the concept
of state to make those rights a meaningful reality. It is to be noted that the definition is
applicable to part III and as per article 36 to part IV as well. Local authorities are state but
that does not entitle them to claim their statues as state governments or central governments.
The reason is that there is a distinction between the “state” and “government”, also public
corporations cannot be considered as government departments under the state.

Definition of State (Article 12).--Article 12 defines the term ‘State’ as used in different
Articles of Part III of the Constitution. It says that unless the context otherwise require the
term ‘State’ includes the following:

1. The Government and Parliament of India, i.e., Executive and Legislature of the Union.
2. The Government the Legislature of each State, i.e., Executive am 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 executive as well as the legislative organs of the Union and

4|Page
States. It is therefore, the actions of these bodies that can be challenged before the courts as
violating fundamental rights.

AUTHORITIES.-According to Webster‘s Dictionary, “Authority" means a person or body

exercising power to command. In the context of Article 12 the word "authority" means the
power to make laws, orders, regulations, bye-laws notification etc. which have the force of
law and power to enforce those laws.

LOCAL AUTHORITIES.- ‘Local authorities’ as defined in Section 3 (31) of the General

Clauses Act refers to authorities like Municipalities, District Board, Panchayats,
improvement Trust and Mining Settlement Boards etc. all come under the scope of local
authorities and remedy against them can be sought by an individual. The bye-laws that a Municipal
committee makes are all under the definition of Law under Article 13 and can be challenged on basis
of violation of a fundamental right. The reference to local authorities has been given in the General
Clauses act, 1897 and it would be pertinent to analyse the same briefly. A proper and careful
scrutiny of Section 3(31) suggests that an authority in order to be a local authority, must be of like
nature and character as a municipal committee, District Board or Body of Port commissioners,
possessing therefore, many, if not all, of the distinctive attributes and characteristics of those
bodies, but possessing one essential feature namely, that it is legally entitled to or entrusted by the
government with the control and management of a local fund.

In Mohammed Yasin v. Town Area Committee, the Supreme Court held that the bye-laws of
a Municipal Committee charging a prescribed fee on the wholesale dealer was an order by a
State authority contravened Article 19 (1)(g). These bye-laws in effect and in substance have
brought, about a total stoppage of the wholesale dealer‘s business in the commercial sense. In
Sri Ram V The Notified Area Committee, a fee levied under Section 294 of the U.P,
Municipalities Act. 1919, was held to be invalid.

OTHER AUTHORITIES.-In Article 12 the expression ‘other authorities’ is used after

mentioning a few of them, such as the Government, Parliament of India, the Government and
Legislature of each of the States and all local authorities. Some High Courts held that since
the expression “other authorities” is used after mentioning a few of them, namely, the
Government and Parliament of India, the government and the legislature of each of the States,
and local authorities, it would be reasonable to construe this expression ejusdem generis with

5|Page
government or legislature. So construed, it could only mean authorities exercising
governmental or sovereign powers and functions. On this interpretation, the expression,
“other authorities” would only include such bodies as are functioning for or on behalf of the
Central or State Governments. This restricted interpretation of the expression “other
authorities” was, however, rejected by the Supreme Court. It held that the doctrine of
ejusdem generis was inapplicable to the interpretation of the expression “other authorities".
To invoke the application of ejusdem generis rule, the court said, there must be a distinct
genus or category running through the bodies already named. In Article 12, there was no
common genus running through these named bodies, nor could these bodies be placed in one
single category on any rational basis.

In University of Madras v. Santa Bai the Madras High Court held that ‘other authorities’
could only indicate authorities of a like nature i.e., ejusdem generis. So construed, it could
only mean authorities exercising governmental or sovereign functions. It cannot include
persons natural or juristic, such as, a University unless it is ‘maintained by the State'.

But in Ujjammbai v. State of UP, the Court rejected this restrictive interpretation the
expression ‘other authorities’ given by the Madras High Court and held that the ejusdem
generis rule could not be resorted to in interpreting this expression. In Article 12 the bodies
specifically named are the Government of the Union and the States, the Legislature of the
Union and the States and local authorities. There is no common genus running through these
named bodies nor can these bodies so placed in one single category on any rational basis.

In EIectricity Board,'Rajasthan v. Mohan lal, the Supreme Court held that expression
‘other authorities’ is wide enough to include all authorities created by the Constitution or
statute on which powers are conferred by law. It is not necessary that statutory authority
should be engaged in performing governmental or sovereign function. On this interpretation
the expression ‘other authorities’ will include Rajasthan Electricity Board, Cochin Devasom
Board. Co-operative Society, which have power to sovereign laws under Co-operative
Societies Act. 1911. The Chief Justice of a High Court is also included in the expression
‘other authorities’ as he has power to appoint officials of the Court. The President when
making order under Article 359 of the Constitution comes within the ambit of the expression
‘other authorities’. In effect, the Rajasthan electricity Board’s decision has overruled the
decision of the Madras High Court in Santa Bai's case, holding a University not to be “the
State”. And finally, the Patna High court, following the decision of the Supreme Court, has

6|Page
held that the Patna University is “a State”.

The effect of these decisions was that the ‘authorities’ not created by the Constitution or by a
statute could not be a ‘State’ within the meaning of Article 12 of the :Constitution. This was a
very restrictive interpretation of the expression ‘other authorities’ under Article 12 of the
Constitution.
But in subsequent decisions the Supreme Court has given a broad and liberal interpretation to
the expression ‘other authorities’ in Article 12. With the changing role of the State form
merely being a police State to a welfare State it was necessary to widen the scope of the
expression “authorities” in Article 12 so as to include all those bodies which are, though not
created by the Constitution or by a statute, are acting as agencies or instrumentalities of the
Government. In modern times a government has to perform manifold functions. For this
purpose it has to employ various agencies to perform these functions. The Court has,
therefore, rightly taken the view that such juridical persons acting as the instrumentality or
agency of the government must be subject to the same restrictions as the State.

In Airport Authority’s case, Bhagwati, J., preferred, and rightly, the broader test as suggested
by Mathew, J., in Sukhdev v. Bhagatram case. In this case the Court has held that if a body is
an agency or instrumentality of govemment it may be an ‘authority' within the meaning of
Article 12 whether it is a statutory corporation. a government company or even a registered
society. Accordingly it was held that the International

Airport Authority which had been created by an Act of Parliament was the “State” Within the
meaning of Article 12. The Central Government had power to appoint the Chairman and
other members of the Airport Authority. It has power to terminate the appointment of any
member form the Board. The capital needed by it was provided only by the Central
Government. But what is the test whether a body is an agency or instrumentality?

Test to Determine Whether a Body is An Agency or Instrumentality of the State:

The Court laid down the following tests for determining whether a body is an agency or
instrumentality of the Government:

 Financial resources of the State are the chief funding source, i.e., if the entire share
capital of the corporation is held by Government.

7|Page
  Existence of deep and pervasive State control,
 Functional character being governmental in essence. i.e., if the functions of the
corporation are of public importance and closely related to governmental functions,
 If a department of Government is transferred to a corporation,

Whether the corporation enjoys monopoly status which is State conferred or State protected.
However, the Court said that these tests are not conclusive but illustrative only and will have
to be used with care and caution.

Applying this test in Som Prakash v. 'Union of India, the Court held that Government
Company (Bharat Petroleum Corporation) fell within the meaning of the expression ‘the
State’ used in Article 12. The expression ‘other authorities’ will includes all constitutional or
statutory authorities on whom powers are conferred for the purpose of carrying commercial
activities or bodies created for the purpose of promoting economic activities. The expression
‘other authorities’ is not confined only to statutory corporations alone but may include a
government company, a registered society, or bodies which have some nexus with
government.

Similarly, in Star Enterprises v. C.T.D.C. of Maharashtra Ltd., it has been held that a
government company under Section 617 of the Companies Act constitute as the Development
Authority under the Maharashtra State Town Planning Act, 1966 is a ‘State’ within the
meaning of Article 12 and therefore in its dealings with the citizens of India it would be
required to act within the Rule of law and would not be permitted to conduct its activities
arbitrarily.

In S. M. llyas V ICAR it has been held that the Indian Council of Agricultural Research is a
State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. In Central Inland Water Transport
Corporation v. Brojo Nath Ganguly, the court applied the above test and held that the Central
Inland Water transport Corporation, a Government company which was wholly owned by the
Central Government and managed by Chairman and Board of Directors appointed and
removable by Central Government was “the State” within the meaning of Article 12 and
therefore an instrumentality or agency of the State. It is nothing but the Government
operating behind a corporate veil, carrying out a Governmental activity and Governmental
functions of vital public importance through the instrumentality of a Government Company.

8|Page
If there is an instrumentality or agency of the State which has assumed the garb of a
Government Company as defined in Section 617 of the Companies Act, it does not follow
that is thereby ceases to be an instrumentality or agency of the State.

In Sheela Barse v. Secretary, Children’s Aid Society, the Court held that Children’s Aid
Society, Bombay registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 was an instrumentality
of the State and fell within the expression ‘the State’ within the meaning of Article 12. It is a
Public Trust under the Bombay Public Trusts Act of 1950. The Chief Minister of the State is
its ex-officio President. The Society receives grants from the State.

In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, the important question which rose before the Court was
whether a private corporation fell within the ambit of Article 12. Although the question
whether a private corporation fell within the ambit of Article 12 was not finally decided by
the Court, but it stressed the need to do so in future.

Statutory Bodies:

Statutory bodies are such bodies which are established under a statute or established by a
statute. All statutory bodies are other authorities and they can be defined under the definition
of state.

In Ramana D Shetty v. Airport Authority of India which gave us the 5 Point test as
propounded by Justice P.N Bhagwati. This is a test to determine whether a body is an agency
or instrumentality of the state and goes as follows –

1. Financial resources of the State are the Chief funding source i.e. the entire share
capital is held by the government.
2. Deep and pervasive control of the State
3. Functional character being Governmental in its essence, meaning thereby that its
functions have a public importance or are of a governmental character.
4. A department of Government transferred to a corporation
5. Enjoys Monopoly status which is State conferred or protected by it.

In U.P. Warehousing Corporation v. Vijai Narain, it was held that the U.P. Warehousing
Corporation which was constituted under a statute and owned and controlled by the
Government was an agency or instrumentality of the Government and therefore “the State”

9|Page
within the meaning of Article 12. Its employees have a statutory status and therefore in case
of wrongful dismissal of an employee a writ could be issued against body. Chinnappa Reddy,
J ., agreeing with majority, in his separate judgment summed up the position as follow: “I
find very hard indeed to discover any distinction on principle between a person under the
employment of an agency or instrumentality of the government or a corporation set up under
statute or incorporated but wholly owned by Government. The function of the State has
completely changed. It is a welfare state which has resulted in inter se governmental activity
in manifold ways. Its acthitics have touched many aspects of a citizen’s life. The Government
directly or through the corporations, now owns or manages a large number of industries and
institutions. It is the biggest trader in the country. The Government, its agencies and
instrumentalities corporation set by it or owned by it have thus become the biggest
employers in the country. There is no reason why, if government is bound to observe the
equality clauses of the Constitution in the matter of employment, should not be equally
bound. it is therefore right and the independence and integrity of those employed in the public
sector should be secured as much as the “independence and integrity of civil servants.

In Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagatram, the Supreme Court, following the test laid down in
Electricity Board Rajasthan’s case by 4:1 majority, (Alagiriswamy, J . dissenting) held that
Oil and Natural Gas Commission, Life Insurance Corporation and Industrial Finance
Corporation, are authorities within the meaning of Article 12 0f the Constitution and
therefore, they are ‘State’. All three statutory Corporations have power to make regulations
under the statute for regulating conditions of service of their employees. The rules and
regulations framed by the above bodies have the force of law. The terms of contract with a
particular employer is prescribed by the statute itself. These regulations are binding on these
bodies. The employees of these statutory bodies have a statutory status and they are entitled
to declaration of being in employment when their dismissal or removal is in contravention of
statutory provisions. The employees are entitled to claim protection of Articles 14 and 16
against the Corporation. Mathew, J., in a separate but concurring judgment, preferred a
broader test that if the functions of the Corporation are of public importance and closely
related to governmental functions it should be treated an agency or instrumentality of
government and hence a ‘State’ within the ambit of Article 12 of the Constitution.

10 | P a g e
Non Statutory bodies:

Non statutory bodies are such bodies which are created the general law. Other authorities
include non statutory bodies.

In Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib, it has been held that a Society registered under he Societies
Registration Act, 1898, is an agency or “instrumentality of the State” and hence a 'State’
within the meaning of Article 12. Its composition is determined by the representatives of the
Government. The expenses of society are entirely provided by the Central Government. The
rules made by the society require prior approval of the State and central Governments. The
society is to comply with all directions of the Government. It is completely controlled by the
Government. The Government has power to appoint and remove the members of the society.
Thus, the State and the Central Government have full control of the working of the society. In
view of these elements the society is an instrumentality of the State or the Central
Government and it is therefore an “authority” within the meaning of Article 12. The test is
not as to how the juristic person is created but why it has been brought into existence. A
corporation may be statutory corporation created by a statute or a government company
formed under the Companies Act, 1956, or a society registered under the Societies
Registration Act, 1860 or any other similar statute. It would be an ‘authority’ within the
meaning of Article 12 if it is an instrumentality or agency of the Government and that would
have to be decided on a proper assessment of the case in the light of the relevant factors. The
factors that are finally summarised in Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib are:

 If the entire share capital of the corporation is held by Government, it would go a long
way towards indicating that the corporation is an instrumentality or agency of
Government.
 Where the financial assistance of the State is so much as to meet almost entire
expenditure of the corporation, it would afford some indication of the corporation
being impregnated with Governmental character.
 Whether the corporation enjoys monopoly status which is State conferred or State
protected.
 Existence of deep and pervasive State control may afford an indication that the
corporation is a State agency or instrumentality.

11 | P a g e
  If the functions of the corporation are of public importance and closely related to
Governmental functions, it would be a relevant factor in classifying the corporation as
an instrumentality or agency of Government.
 If a department of Government is transferred to a corporation, it would be a strong
factor supportive of this inference of the corporation being an instrumentality or
agency of Government.

In B.S. Minhas v. Indian Statistical institute, it has been held that the Indian Statistical
Society a society Registered under the Societies Registration Act,.1860 being under the
complete control of the Government of India is an instrumentality of the central Government
and therefore, an “authority” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution.
Accordingly, a writ-petition under Article 32 against the Institute for violation of
fundamental rights is maintainable. Similarly, the Court held that the Indian Council of
Agricultural Research a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, is an
instrumentality of Central Government, and an “authority" within the meaning of Article 12
and, therefore, amenable to writ-jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution. In
Manmohan Singh Jaitla v. Commissioner, union Territory of Chandigarh, the Court following
Ajai Hasia’s case held that an aided school which received a Government grant of 90 percent
was an “authority” within the meaning of Article 12. Similarly, it has been held that the Food
Corporation of India the Steel Authority of India, Bihar State Electricity Board, Indian Oil
Corporation, are the ‘State’ within the meaning of ‘other authorities’ under Article 12 as they
are istrumentalities of the State. In AISSF Association V Defence Minister-cum-chairman,
B.0.G.S.S society, it has been held that Sainik School Society is the State” and amenable to
writ jurisdiction of the Court The entire fund is given by the State Government and the
Central Government The overall control vests in the Governmental authority.

 All non statutory bodies are not other authorities

In Sri Kona Seema Co-operative Central Bank Ltd. V N. Seetharama Raju been held
that the Co-Operative Bank registered under the AP. Co-operative Societies Act is not ‘State’
within the meaning of Article 12 as the functions of the Bank were not of public importance
and not closely related to governmental function. The Bank’s main object was to raise funds
to finance its members. Following Tekraj Vasanji v. Union of India the Court in Chandra
Mohan Khanna v. NCERT, has held that National Council of Educational Research and
Training, is not a ‘State’ within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. It is a society

12 | P a g e
registered under the Societies Registration Act. The object of the NCERT is to assist and
advise the Ministry of Education and Social Welfare in the implementation of the
governmental policies and major programmes in the field of education particularly school
education. These activities are not wholly related to governmental functions. The
governmental control is confined only to proper utilization of the grant. It is an autonomous
body. Article 12 should not be stretched so as to bring in every autonomous body which has
some nexus with the government within the sweep of the expression, ‘State’. In the modern
concept of welfare State, independent institution, corporation and agency are generally
subject to State control.

In Tekraj Vasandi v. Union of India, it has been held that the “Institute of Constitutional
and Parliamentary Studies”, a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, is
not a state within the meaning of Article 12. The Institute of constitutional and Parliamentary
studies is neither an agency nor an instrumentality of the State. It is a voluntary organisation.
The object of the society is not related to government business. In the functioning of the
society, the Government does not have deep and pervasive control. Though the Minister
exercises his authority as the controlling department of Government in the matter of making
the grant but that itself may not be a Conclusive feature. In a welfare State government's
control is very pervasive and, in fact touches all aspects of social existence. A society
registered under the Societies Registration Act may be treated, as ‘State’ if either the
government business is undertaken by the society or the public obligation of the State is
undertaken by the society. Since such a position is not present in the present case the Institute
of Constitutional and Parliamentary Studies does not come within the purview of ‘other,
authorities’ in article 12.

AUTHORITIES UNDER THE CONTROL OF THE GOVERNMENT:

By words ‘authorities under control of the Government of India’, it is meant to bring into the
definition of State all areas outside Indian territory but which are under or may come under
the control of the Government of India, such as, mandatory or trustee territories. Such a
territory may come under India’s control by international agreement. Thus even such areas
will be the subject to Part III and the inhabitants of such areas may also claim the benefit of
Fundamental Rights guaranteed in Part III.

13 | P a g e
The words ”under the control of the Government of India”, in Article 12 are meant to bring
into the definition of State not only every authority within the territory of India, but also those
functioning outside, provided such authorities are under the control of the Government of
India. Thus, a person can enforce his fundamental rights against an executive or
administrative order of an authority under the control of the Government of India, functioning
outside the territory of India. In such a case suitable orders may be passed against the
Government of India, directing them to give effect to the decision of the court in the exercise
of their power of control over the authority outside the territory of India.59 The court also
seems to have held that an authority within the reach of Article 12 is automatically within the
control of the Government of India. This does not appear to be correct. Every authority under
the control of the Government of India is State within the article 12. But the reverse of it does
not automatically follow.

In State of Assam v. Barak Upatyaka D.U. Karmchari Sansthan, the Supreme Court has
held that the financial assistance provided by the State Government in the form of grant in aid
to Assam Cooperative Society continuously for some years does not make the society a State
within the definition of State under Article 12 of the Constitution and therefore, the State
would not be responsible to bear and pay salaries and allowances of its employees by
extending aid forever.

Unaided minority School- unaided minority schools over which the Government has no
administrative control due to their authority under Article 30 (1) of the Constitution are not
“state” within the meaning of Article 12 of the constitution. The right to equality which is
available against the State cannot be claimed against unaided minority schools and in the
absence of any statutory provision or administrative instruction requiring private unaided
schools to pay their teachers the same salary and allowances as are being paid to the teachers
of private recognized aided schools as being paid in the government institutions, unaided
minority institutions are under no obligation to pay equal pay for equal work to their
teachers.2

Private Institute.--S.R.M. University Madras, declared "Deemed University" by the Central

Government under Section 3 of the UGC Act, the Management of which was in the private

14 | P a g e
trust was held to be an authority provided under Article 12 of the Constitution and amenable
to the writ jurisdiction because :

 It imparted education in higher studies to the students at large.

 It discharged public functions by way of imparting education
 It was notified as a deemed university under Section 3 of the UGC Act.
 Being a deemed university by the Central Government under Section 3 of the UGC
Act, all the provisions of the UGC Act were made applicable to it which, inter alia,
provided for effective discharge of public function, namely, education for benefit of
public.
 Once it was declared as "deemed university" whose all functions and activities were
governed by the UGC Act, like other universities, it was “other authority” within the
meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution.
 Once it was held to be an authority as provided in Article 12 then as a necessary
consequence, it was amenable to writ jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226 of
the Constitution.

WHETHER “STATE” INCLUDES THE JUDICIARY:

It is well-settled that the judiciary is within the prohibition of the 14th Amendment. The
judiciary, it is said, though not expressly mentioned in Article 12 it should be included within
the expression 'other authorities’ since courts are set up by statute and exercise power
conferred by law. It is suggested that discrimination may be brought about even (by)
judiciary and the inhibition of Article 14 extends to all actions of the State denying equal
protection of the laws whether it be the action of any one of the three limbs of the State. The
question whether the judiciary was included within the definition of ‘the State' in Article 12
arose for consideration of the Supreme Court.

In Naresh v. State of Maharashtra, It was held that even if a Court is the State a writ under
Article 32 cannot be issued to a High Court of competent jurisdiction against its judicial
orders, because such orders cannot be said to violate the fundamental rights. Service is of
opinion that the judiciary should be included in the definition of the Supreme Court. The
courts, like any other organ if the state, are limited by the mandatory provisions of the
Constitution and they can hardly be allowed to override the fundamental rights under the
shield that they have within their jurisdiction, the right to make an erroneous decision. in

15 | P a g e
view of the judgement of 7 judge bench of the supreme Court in A. R. Antulay V R. S. Natak,
where it has been held that the court cannot pass an order or issue a direction which would be
violative of fundamental rights of citizens, it can be said that the expression "state" as defined
in article 12 of the Constitution includes judiciary also.

The Judiciary is not expressly mentioned in the Article 12 and a great amount of dissenting
opinions exist on the same matter. Bringing Judiciary entirely under Article 12 causes a great
deal of confusion as it comes with an attached inference that the very guardian of our
fundamental rights is himself capable of infringing them. Perhaps with the help of relevant
judgments this can be better understood.

However, in Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra AIR 2002 SC 1771 the Apex Court
reaffirmed and ruled that no judicial proceeding could be said to violate any of the
Fundamental rights and that it is a settled position of law that superior courts of justice did
not fall within the ambit of ‘state’ or ‘other authorities’ under Article 12.

This leaves with us with the rationale that a Superior Judicial body when acting “Judicially”
would not fall under the definition of State but when it performs any administrative or similar
functions e.g. conducting examination, it will fall under the definition of “state” and that
remedy could be sought in that context only in case of violation of fundamental rights.

Jurists like H.M.Seervai, V.N.Shukla consider judiciary to be State. Their view is supported
by Articles 145 and 146 of the Constitution of India.

 The Supreme Court is empowered to make rules for regulating the practice and
procedure of Courts.
 The Supreme Court is empowered to make appointments of its staff and servants;
decide the service conditions.

In Prem Garg v/s Excise Commissioner H.P. the Supreme Court held that when rule
making power of judiciary is concerned, it is State.
Other jurists say that since judiciary has not been specifically mentioned in Article 12, it is
not a State. It has been observed that when rule making power of judiciary is concerned it is
State but when exercise of judicial power is concerned it is not State.

16 | P a g e