The judiciary is not considered a “State” under Article 12 of the Indian Constitution when it is acting in its judicial capacity for several reasons. Here’s an explanation:
1. Separation of Powers:
India follows the principle of separation of powers, where the functions of the executive, legislature, and judiciary are distinct and independent. The judiciary’s primary role is to interpret and apply laws, not to create or enforce them. Since Article 12 is mainly concerned with authorities involved in law-making and execution (i.e., the legislature and executive), the judiciary, while performing judicial functions, remains outside this scope.
2. Protection of Judicial Independence:
Recognizing the judiciary as “State” under Article 12 for its judicial functions could undermine its independence. The judiciary’s ability to act impartially and uphold the Constitution would be compromised if its decisions were subject to scrutiny as state actions. It must be able to review and check the constitutionality of executive and legislative actions, including potential violations of fundamental rights, without being seen as a part of the same “State” machinery.
3. Judicial Review and Fundamental Rights:
If the judiciary were considered a “State” under Article 12, then judicial decisions could be challenged on the grounds of violating fundamental rights. This would create a paradox, as courts are meant to protect and enforce fundamental rights. Holding the judiciary accountable under Article 12 would blur the lines between the protector of fundamental rights and the alleged violator, which is against the purpose of the Constitution.
4. Administrative Functions:
However, the judiciary can be treated as “State” when performing administrative or non-judicial functions. For example, when courts make decisions about hiring or service matters, they are engaging in administrative actions that could be subject to scrutiny under fundamental rights. In such cases, the judiciary could be considered as part of the “State” machinery.
Case Law Interpretation:
Indian courts have confirmed this distinction in various rulings. For instance, in Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra (1966), the Supreme Court clarified that judicial decisions cannot be challenged as “State action” under Article 12 for violation of fundamental rights, as the judiciary is not included in the definition of “State” for its judicial functions.
In summary, the judiciary is kept outside the scope of “State” under Article 12 to maintain its independence and impartiality as a separate pillar of democracy, crucial for upholding the Constitution and fundamental rights.
« Is Judiciary a State under Article 12 in India?
Leave a Reply