Abstract
In the current legal landscape, the amenability of Writ Jurisdiction hinges upon the judicial scrutiny of whether a body can be recognised as “State” under Article 12 or otherwise be subjected to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Writ is a formal written order or command issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court (under Article 32) or High Courts (under Article 226) in the name of the state, directing a person, lower court, or authority to act or refrain from acting, primarily to enforce fundamental rights or correct legal errors. However, whether the party for which a writ has been filed is a “State” or not, has long engaged judicial scrutiny. Article 226 grants the High Courts the power to issue writ to “any person or authority” for “enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for any other purpose”, meaning that while the Article 12 limits the scope to only “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.”, Article 226 increases the scope over the Article 12’s definition and makes it easier for the citizens to approach the court for Writ Petitions. Article 12 of the Indian Constitution was last comprehensively examined over 2 decades ago in Zee Telefilms Ltd. v. Union of India , where the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) did not qualify as “State” under Article 12, despite performing functions of significant public importance. The Court reiterated that mere public function or public impact is insufficient unless deep and pervasive governmental control is established. However, the exact scope of Article 226 remains a question, as many judgements have been given on the matter, yet they often lacked consistency. The present article examines the evolving scope of Article 226, with a particular emphasis on Banking (Financial) and Educational Sector.