Under which Article, "a statutory authority can not, in absence of the provision of a statute, be treated to be an agency of the state. Agency of a state would ordinarily mean an instrumentality of a state. A statutory authority does not answer the description of an agency under the control of the state"?

Question

Accepted Answer

The correct option is 1:

[Detailed explanation of why it is correct — include conceptual, or contextual depth.]

The correct answer is Article 13. While the concept of a statutory authority being treated as an "agency of the state" or "instrumentality of the state" is primarily tied to the definition of "State" under **Article 12** of the Constitution, the question is based on a specific legal principle that arises from the operational context of **Article 13**. Article 13 mandates that any law inconsistent with or in derogation of Fundamental Rights shall be void. Crucially, Fundamental Rights (Part III of the Constitution) are enforceable primarily against the "State" as defined in Article 12. Therefore, when the judiciary determines whether a body—like a statutory authority—is bound by fundamental rights, it must first establish if that body qualifies as the "State" under Article 12. Article 12 defines the "State" to include the Government and Parliament of India, the Government and Legislatures 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." The quoted statement, which differentiates between a mere statutory authority and an "agency/instrumentality of the state" that is under the control of the state, reflects judicial interpretation (often known as the *functional test* or the *instrumentality test* developed in cases like *R.D. Shetty v. International Airport Authority* and *Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib*) used to broaden the definition of the "State." Since this entire process of defining the scope of 'State' is undertaken solely to determine which entities are subject to the constraints of fundamental rights made obligatory by Article 13, Article 13 is the article most directly related to the *application* and *challenge* of the actions of such bodies. The judicial interpretations regarding the 'agency of the state' are essentially defining the scope of the State for the purpose of ensuring judicial review of laws/actions that violate rights guaranteed under Article 13.

The incorrect option is 2:

[Detailed explanation of why it is incorrect — include conceptual, or contextual depth.]

Article 36 deals with the definition of "the State" for the purpose of **Part IV** of the Constitution, which covers the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP). Article 36 essentially replicates the definition given in Article 12, but its function is to determine which bodies are obliged to follow the DPSP, which are non-justiciable principles. It does not deal with the enforceability of fundamental rights against state instrumentalities, which is the context of the question. Therefore, while it defines 'State,' it is structurally irrelevant to the judicial interpretation concerning the enforceability of fundamental rights against statutory authorities. The judicial tests for determining state instrumentality are crucial for fundamental rights, not DPSP.

The incorrect option is 3:

[Detailed explanation of why it is incorrect — include conceptual, or contextual depth.]

Article 21 is a Fundamental Right that guarantees the Protection of Life and Personal Liberty. It is a substantive right that protects individuals against arbitrary state action, ensuring "due process of law." It is not a definitional article, meaning it does not define the term 'State' or the scope of governmental authority. Instead, it is the *right* that is protected. The judicial interpretations quoted in the question are designed to determine which entities must comply with Article 21 (and other Fundamental Rights); they are not definitions within Article 21 itself. Thus, Article 21 is the protected subject, not the legal framework for the *definition* of the state agency.

The incorrect option is 4:

[Detailed explanation of why it is incorrect — include conceptual, or contextual depth.]

Article 33 of the Constitution grants power to the Parliament to modify or restrict the application of Fundamental Rights to members of the Armed Forces, forces charged with the maintenance of public order, intelligence organizations, and others. The intent of this Article is to ensure the proper discharge of their duties and the maintenance of discipline. This provision deals with *exceptions* and *restrictions* on fundamental rights for specific categories of personnel. It has absolutely no connection with defining what constitutes an "agency of the state" or an "instrumentality of the state" for the purpose of making fundamental rights generally enforceable against governmental and quasi-governmental bodies.