Legislature in its actions should not abridge the fundamental rights, the executive in its actions should not abridge the fundamental rights. Both are organs of state. So, state should not abridge the fundamental rights because the word ‘state’ has been used in article 13 and 14 as well.
If we give a liberal meaning to the word ‘state’ and we do not confine the meaning to these two organs but instead we try to give a broader meaning to the word, then there will be very little scope for any organization to violate our rights. If we try to bring in more bodies within the definition of state, if we do not try to limit ourselves to just executive and legislature, we will try to bring in more bodies within the discipline of fundamental rights. These other bodies which might be a part of state will also have to work keeping in mind that their actions do not infringe the fundamental rights, the people will be beneficial at the end of all this exercise because it’s our fundamental rights. When we try to bring more authorities by giving a more liberal meaning of state, those authorities will also not be permitted to abridge our fundamental rights. Text in our constitution is same but interpretation of word ‘state’ has undergone a change. Judiciary is responsible for making this revolution.
When the state is trying to look out for the well-being of a larger section of society, it might so happen that it ends up infringing on rights of some individuals while looking out for the greater good. The rights that fewer individuals have will have to be sacrificed for the greater good. State reserves the authority to compulsorily acquire certain land for these kinds of purposes, like building factories, buildings, etc. Under the land acquisition act, state gets an authority to compulsorily acquire land.
It means that the people who in some way might be possessing the land because state will not always be the owner of huge portions of land. That’s the reason of acquiring the land in the first place arises. Land might be in possession of certain private individuals, but for the greater good, the state might seek to acquire that land. This is where conflict arises. States provide concessions to companies because once they arrive, jobs would be created. States will have to pay a certain amount to individuals which is similar to the marked price of land. One thing we need to understand is that when interaction between state and people increase, chances of infringement of rights also increases, and to hold state accountable, we need to understand who and what is state.
State is an abstract entity. We have some people who will be working for the state. State performs its duties through these people. These people are part of government. State performs a variety of functions and government departments that are usually set up are not sufficient to perform various functions. State is required to come up with certain bodies whom they have to pass on those functions and necessity for outsourcing arises. Most of the fundamental rights can be claimed against the state we ask for our vindication of fundamental rights from the supreme court against the state. Article 13 (2) imposes an obligation on the state not to take away the fundamental rights of the citizens. An embargo has been placed on the state for infringing the rights of the citizens. If state infringes the fundamental right, then court will strike down such an action.
The term ‘state’ includes the government, parliament of India, legislature of a state, all local authorities and other authorities within the territory of India or under the control of central government. This type of definition is called as an inclusive definition. There are many types of definition and this definition is open-ended. Whenever the word ‘includes’ has been used under a definition, that type of definition is called as an inclusive definition. When the word ‘means’ has been used that would mean that it’s a close ended definition, so whatever has been defined it will have to be limited to that.
The only problem that arises with respect to the interpretation of the word ‘state’ is the meaning of the word ‘other authorities’. Which authorities come under ‘other authorities’ hasn’t been provided, neither in article 12 nor in any other part of the constitution. When we talk about the liberal interpretation of ‘state’, we are actually talking about the liberal interpretation of ‘other authorities’. When more authorities come under this definition, they have to exercise their power in such a manner that they do not infringe our fundamental rights.
State includes government departments, autonomous bodies and natural individuals. If a government department’s actions infringe the fundamental right of the individual, it’s definitely going to be amendable to the writ jurisdiction and such a department is going to be liable before the judiciary and we can claim our fundamental right against the government department. It is directly a part of state, that’s why it will be treated as a state. State might outsource certain responsibility to autonomous bodies which are established. They are independent, but not entirely. They can be divided under 2 heads, statutory and non-statutory body. Statutory body will be established under a statute. If it is established under a law made by the parliament, such a body will owe its existence to the law that has been made by the parliament. A statutory body can also be established under a law made by state legislature. Non- statutory body does not originate from a statute. This body has been formed because of some people who are coming together and they want to give a legal recognition to that body. They do that by registering that body under any general law, example- companies act or societies registration act. States can also have their own societies registration act. State is capable of performing its functions through both statutory and non-statutory bodies.
Not each and every body can be said to be brought within the definition of other authority. Here, judiciary plays an important role. Meaning of ‘other authority’ is provided by the judiciary. Courts will apply certain tests which have been developed by the judiciary to the cases that come before them and it will try and understand who is the one who is actually behind this autonomous body. If it turns out to be that abstract entity of state, then in that case the court will hold this body as state within the definition of state and it will be subject to the same limitations which is given in clause 2 of article13. This helps us understand why the more and more liberal interpretation of the word ‘state’ is being done in today’s time.
UNIVERSITY OF MADRAS V. SHANTA BAI
In this case, the question before court was that whether the university can be termed as ‘other authority’ and whether therefore will it fall within the definition of article 12. It was brought before madras high court and not before the supreme court. It was in the year 1954 that Madras high court got the opportunity to decide the meaning of word other authority. The court applied certain principles of interpretation to the word ‘other authority’ and with that it came to a conclusion that the word ’other authority’ will only mean those authorities which are exercising governmental or sovereign functions. The principle of interpretation is also called ejusdem generis. It’s a Latin phrase and it means ‘of the same kind’. When a law is being made, the legislature might talk about the articles or the bodies or the authorities to which that law will be applicable. Legislation will mention few things are there but foresight of legislature is not so much to include each and everything in that legislation. It’s in these situations that the necessity is that the legislature keeps the points to which the law is going to be applied to newer things as and when they come up. The meaning would mean that when the question of interpreting the generally used words in a legislature arises, so the generally used words are to be interpreted in light of the specifically used words by the legislature. According to this principle, the general words will have to derive their meaning from the specific words. There has to be a common category in which all the specific words can be put. General word will also have to derive the same meaning which is given to all the specific words in a general category.
Madras high court tried to look at the other 3 points of article 12. It said that if we are to apply ejusdem generis we will have to identify the common Genis that runs through the first 3 points. If there is a common Genis for the first 3 points of article 12, then another authority will have to be interpreted in the same light. High court thought that the earlier 3 bodies which have been mentioned under article 12, central, parliament, state, state legislature and other authority, these all bodies are those authorities which are exercising governmental or sovereign function and that’s why they can be put into one particular category according to high court and therefore it came to a conclusion that university will not be termed as other authority because of the fact that it cannot be brought into the category of a body which is performing governmental or sovereign function.
It was also said that a university might be considered as an ‘other authority’ but for that it should be totally maintained by the state. ‘Maintained by the state’ means that if for working of university it is totally dependent on the financial assistance of the state. In this case, the madras university was simply financially assisted by the state. It did not totally depend on the financial assistance of state. It did possess the authority to raise its own revenue. On the basis of these facts the high court came to a conclusion that the university cannot be termed as a state. The application of ejusdem generis which was done by the madras high court came into question before another case which was divided by the high court.
UJJAM BAI V. STATE OF U.P.
The question before the court was how would the word ‘other authority’ is to be interpreted. Decision of high court cannot be binding on the supreme court, but at the same time it can still be pointed out to the court. Here, supreme court rejected the view taken by madras high court. Supreme court said that all the bodies which have been mentioned under article 12 they can’t be placed under one single category. The reason is that the functions that the bodies are performing, it’s an absolutely different function in the sense that it becomes like putting the body performing the executive function and body performing the legislative function under the same category.
The court said ejusdem generis requires that all the specific articles which are pointed out all those things should fall into one single category. There should be a common genus that runs through all of them. If there is a common genus then in accordance with their meaning the other general word is to be interpreted. In this case, all these bodies can’t be put under one genus, therefore other authority cannot be interpreted on the basis of the other 3 points of article 12. The implication of this decision of supreme court is we are still uncertain that what should be the meaning of ‘other authority’.
Aishwarya Says:
I have always been against Glorifying Over Work and therefore, in the year 2021, I have decided to launch this campaign “Balancing Life”and talk about this wrong practice, that we have been following since last few years. I will be talking to and interviewing around 1 lakh people in the coming 2021 and publish their interview regarding their opinion on glamourising Over Work.
If you are interested in participating in the same, do let me know.
Do follow me on Facebook, Twitter Youtube and Instagram.
The copyright of this Article belongs exclusively to Ms. Aishwarya Sandeep. Reproduction of the same, without permission will amount to Copyright Infringement. Appropriate Legal Action under the Indian Laws will be taken.
If you would also like to contribute to my website, then do share your articles or poems at adv.aishwaryasandeep@gmail.com
We also have a Facebook Group Restarter Moms for Mothers or Women who would like to rejoin their careers post a career break or women who are enterpreneurs.