The Indian Constitution enshrines the concept of the "State" under Article 12 to ensure the protection of fundamental rights from infringement by entities wielding sovereign power. However, the role of the judiciary in this context is nuanced and has sparked judicial debates. While acting in a judicial capacity, the judiciary is not deemed a "State" under Article 12. However, when performing administrative functions, it falls within the purview of the State.

This dual nature of the judiciary underscores the balance between judicial independence and the accountability of state authorities. This article examines the jurisprudential evolution of this concept, focusing on the landmark case of Riju Prasad Sharma v. State of Assam (2015), along with other relevant judgments and constitutional provisions.

Introduction
Article 12 of the Indian Constitution defines the term "State" for the purposes of enforcing fundamental rights under Part III. It includes the Government and Parliament of India, the Government and Legislature of each State, and all local or other authorities within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India. However, whether the judiciary is included in the term "State" has been a matter of legal and constitutional scrutiny.

The judiciary, as the guardian of the Constitution, enjoys independence, which is fundamental to the doctrine of separation of powers. At the same time, when it exercises non-judicial functions, its actions must adhere to the principles of constitutional accountability. The dichotomy of judicial and administrative roles of the judiciary is central to determining its status under Article 12.

Article 12 and the Role of the Judiciary

"State" includes the Government and Parliament of India, the Government and the Legislature of each State, and all local or other authorities within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India.

Article 12 forms the cornerstone of constitutional remedies under Articles 32 and 226, ensuring that actions of the "State" do not infringe upon fundamental rights.

Judiciary as "State": A Contextual Analysis

• Judicial Capacity

  When courts adjudicate disputes, interpret laws, or exercise their judicial functions, they act independently and are not deemed a "State" under Article 12. The judiciary in such instances serves as the custodian of the Constitution, upholding fundamental rights against violations by other state organs.
   

• Administrative Capacity

  In contrast, when the judiciary performs administrative functions, such as recruitment, appointments, or managing judicial services, it acts as a "State" under Article 12. In such scenarios, its actions are subject to the discipline of Part III of the Constitution.

Case Law Analysis

1. Riju Prasad Sharma v. State of Assam (2015):

   • Facts: The case addressed the issue of whether the judiciary, while discharging administrative functions, could be subjected to judicial review under Article 226. The petitioner challenged administrative orders passed by the High Court.
   • Judgment: The Supreme Court held that the judiciary, while acting in a judicial capacity, is not a "State" under Article 12. However, in administrative matters, it assumes the character of the State and is subject to fundamental rights scrutiny.
   • Key Observations:
     • Judicial independence is paramount when courts perform their adjudicatory roles.
     • Administrative actions, being non-judicial, fall within the ambit of Article 12.
   • Citation: (2015) 9 SCC 461
      

2. A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak (1988):

   • The Supreme Court ruled that judicial orders cannot be challenged as violations of fundamental rights under Article 32, emphasizing that the judiciary is not a "State" in its judicial capacity.
   • Citation: (1988) 2 SCC 602
      
3. <

   Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra (1966):

   • In this landmark case, the Supreme Court clarified that judicial decisions do not fall under the purview of Article 12 as they are outcomes of adjudicatory functions rather than administrative actions.
   • Citation: (1966) 3 SCR 744
      

4. E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu (1974):

   • While not directly addressing the judiciary, this case underscored the importance of fairness and accountability in administrative actions, principles equally applicable to the judiciary in its administrative capacity.
   • Citation: (1974) 4 SCC 3

Conclusion
The judiciary, as an institution, plays a dual role within the constitutional framework. While its judicial functions safeguard the Constitution's supremacy and the fundamental rights of individuals, its administrative functions render it accountable as a component of the State under Article 12. The distinction between these roles ensures that judicial independence is preserved while administrative actions are subjected to constitutional scrutiny.

The decision in Riju Prasad Sharma and other landmark cases underscores this nuanced understanding, balancing the principles of accountability and independence. This interpretation harmonizes the judiciary's constitutional responsibilities with its role as a key organ of the State, ensuring justice, equality, and the rule of law.