Pink Chaddi Case Study

The present problem deals with the interpretation of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Art. 12 to the Constitution of India states that “Definition 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.” Violation of fundamental rights can be claimed against both State and citizens in the Indian context. When the actions of State or any “law” passed by the State under Art. 13(2) can be challenged in a Court of law of violating fundamental rights. Hence it becomes important to define as to “what can constitute
of Haryana and Govt. of Telangana hold 69% altogether). There is no financial assistance provided to Pink Chaddi by the government. From the facts it is clear that Pink Chaddi does not have monopoly in the market. Regarding the aspect of “deep and pervasive control”, the government does not control the working/administration of Pink Chaddi so as to apply the “test of hand and limb” (i.e. no delegation of work from government). Pink Chaddi cannot be involved in discharging of some sovereign functions as it is completely involved in the manufacture of electrical parts for satellite. Hence Pink Chaddi cannot be an instrumentality or agency of the State. Also Pink Chaddi has been registered under the Companies Act of 1956. It does not make Pink Chaddi a statutory body as such under the strict sense of Art. 12.
Similar cases where a body/authority was held not to be State by the Supreme Court were Zee Telefilms v. Union of India, AIR 2005 SC 2677 where it was held that the Government neither controlled the BCCI administratively nor financially (holding complete paid up share capital). The government did not even assist the BCCI financially and BCCI was not a statutory body discharging sovereign