The definition of State under Article 12 of the Constitution does not explicitly mention the Judiciary. Bringing the Judiciary within the scope of Article 12 would mean that it is deemed capable of acting in contravention of Fundamental Rights.
- In the case of Naresh v. State of Maharashtra - The issue posed before the Supreme Court for consideration whether judiciary is covered by the expression ‘State’ in Article 12 of the Constitution. The Court held that the fundamental right is not infringed by the order of the Court and no writ can be issued to High Court. However in yet another case, it was held that High Court Judge is as much a part of the State as the executive.
- In RatiLal v. State of Bombay , it was held that Judiciary is not State for the purpose of Article 12. But Supreme Court in cases of A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak and N. S. Mirajkar v/s State of Maharashtra, it has been observed that when rule making power of Judiciary is concerned it is State but when exercise of judicial power is concerned it is not State.
- In Amirabbas v. State of M.B., the Court made the following observation: Denial of equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws can be claimed against executive or legislative process but not against the decision of a competent tribunal.
