Is Judiciary a Part of the State Under Article 12 of the Indian Constitution?
Introduction
The Indian Constitution serves as the backbone of democracy, ensuring the protection of fundamental rights and justice for all citizens. A crucial aspect of constitutional law is Article 12, which defines the term "State" to determine against whom fundamental rights can be enforced. However, there is a long-standing debate on whether the judiciary should be classified as part of the "State" under Article 12.
This classification is significant because:
- It determines whether fundamental rights can be enforced against judicial actions.
- It affects the power of courts in issuing writs against government actions.
- It influences the separation of powers and judicial independence.
This article will provide a comprehensive legal analysis, covering:
- The definition and interpretation of Article 12.
- Judicial rulings on whether courts are part of the State.
- International comparisons and real-world controversies.
- Implications of classifying the judiciary as a "State".
- Proposed reforms for improving judicial accountability while maintaining independence.
Understanding Article 12 of the Indian Constitution
What Does Article 12 Say?
Article 12 of the Indian Constitution states:
“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.”
Entities Considered as “State” Under Article 12
| Entities | Examples |
|---|---|
| Government Bodies | Central and State Governments |
| Legislative Bodies | Parliament, State Assemblies |
| Local Authorities | Municipalities, Panchayats |
| Statutory Bodies | Public Sector Undertakings (PSUs), Commissions |
.png)
Since Article 12 does not explicitly mention the judiciary, the question arises: Should the judiciary be considered a "State"?
Is the Judiciary a Part of the State? The Legal Debate
Arguments in Favor of Including Judiciary Under Article 12
- Judiciary Exercises State Authority: Courts have the power to issue binding judgments, affecting governance, policies, and citizens' rights.
- Judicial Decisions Impact Fundamental Rights: Since courts can influence constitutional rights, they should be held accountable under fundamental rights enforcement.
- Judiciary Performs Administrative Functions: Courts handle administrative matters such as appointments, budgets, and procedural rules, similar to government bodies.
- Writ Jurisdiction Over Courts: Some High Court rulings have recognized that judicial administration can be subject to fundamental rights scrutiny.
.png)
Arguments Against Including Judiciary Under Article 12
- Judicial Independence Must Be Protected: Courts must remain free from political interference to deliver impartial judgments.
- Judiciary Primarily Interprets Laws: Unlike the legislature and executive, the judiciary does not create policies or govern.
- Separation of Powers Doctrine: The Constitution divides powers among the executive, legislature, and judiciary—if courts were considered part of the "State," it could blur this distinction.
- Finality of Judicial Decisions Could Be Undermined: If fundamental rights were enforceable against courts, every judgment could be challenged under writ petitions, creating legal chaos.
.png)
Supreme Court’s Stand on Judiciary Under Article 12
Key Case Laws and Judicial Precedents
| Case | Verdict |
|---|---|
| A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak (1988) | Held that courts are not a "State" while delivering judgments but can be considered a State in administrative functions. |
| Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra (2002) | Ruled that judicial orders of superior courts cannot be challenged under Article 32. |
| Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra (1966) | Stated that writ jurisdiction cannot be used against purely judicial orders. |
| Prem Chand Garg v. Excise Commissioner (1963) | Clarified that rules framed by the judiciary (in administrative capacity) could be challenged under fundamental rights. |
.png)
Legal Interpretation from These Cases
- When acting in a judicial capacity, courts are not a "State".
- When courts perform administrative or rule-making functions, they may be subject to fundamental rights scrutiny.
Real-World Controversies on Judiciary's Accountability
Collegium System and Lack of Transparency
- The appointment of judges in India is handled by the judiciary itself, through the Collegium System, with no external oversight.
- This has led to allegations of bias, nepotism, and lack of transparency in judicial appointments.
Writs Against Administrative Decisions by Courts
- In All India Judges’ Association v. Union of India (1992), the Supreme Court made directives regarding judicial pay and service conditions.
- Critics argued that since the judiciary was making administrative rules, it should be considered a "State" and subjected to fundamental rights scrutiny.
Judicial Overreach in Policy Decisions
- In some cases, courts have issued directives that seem to interfere with legislative and executive functions.
- Example: Supreme Court’s order on fireworks ban and environmental policies.
.png)
Comparison with Other Democracies
| Country | Is Judiciary Considered a "State"? | Key Considerations |
|---|---|---|
| United States | No | Courts are independent and not bound by constitutional restrictions applicable to the State. |
| United Kingdom | No | Judiciary is separate from the government and operates autonomously. |
| Canada | No | Courts are considered neutral adjudicators and are not subject to fundamental rights challenges. |
India follows a hybrid model, where administrative functions of the judiciary can be scrutinized under Article 12, but judicial decisions remain beyond challenge.
Implications of Treating Judiciary as a "State"
Potential Rise in Fundamental Rights Challenges Against Judicial Orders
- Every judicial decision could be challenged through writ petitions, overburdening courts.
Risk of Government Interference
- If the judiciary is considered a "State," it may lose its autonomy, allowing the executive or legislature to influence court rulings.
Need for Clearer Judicial Accountability Mechanisms
- Judicial appointments, administrative decisions, and internal court policies must be more transparent.
Proposed Reforms for Judicial Accountability
Clear Distinction Between Judicial and Administrative Roles
- Courts should be treated as a State only in administrative matters, but not when delivering judgments.
Greater Transparency in the Collegium System
- Judicial appointments should be made more transparent, possibly with an independent oversight committee.
Judicial Oversight Mechanism Without Political Influence
- A Judicial Complaints Commission could be established to ensure accountability without political interference.
Annual Public Reporting of Court Performance
- The judiciary should publish regular reports on case backlog, appointments, and pending matters, ensuring greater public trust.
Conclusion
The judiciary’s classification under Article 12 remains a complex constitutional issue.
- The judiciary is NOT a "State" when performing judicial functions but CAN be considered a "State" in administrative matters.
- Courts must remain independent to protect democracy, but greater transparency and accountability are needed.
- Reforms should focus on enhancing judicial accountability while preserving autonomy.
A balanced approach is crucial to upholding fundamental rights while ensuring judicial independence.
FAQs
Can fundamental rights be enforced against judicial decisions?
- No, but administrative decisions of courts can be challenged under fundamental rights.
Why is judicial independence important?
- It prevents political influence over court decisions.
What are the key cases on this issue?
- A.R. Antulay (1988), Rupa Ashok Hurra (2002), Naresh Mirajkar (1966).
Is the judiciary considered a "State" in other countries?
- No, in the USA, UK, and Canada, courts function independently.
What reforms can improve judicial accountability?
- Greater transparency in appointments, judicial oversight, and clearer distinction between judicial and administrative roles.
0 Comments