Definition of state

article 12 state


Article 12

  In this part, unless the context otherwise requires,” the state “includes the government and the 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.

Government and Legislature of union and states

They include the following entities such as union and state governments which include president and Governors of the state. Moreover, the term Government includes Departments of the government and institutions under the control of government like

  • Income tax
  • Excise Department
  • Forest Research Institute

Local Authorities

Some examples of bodies which come under local authorities include

  • Municipalities
  • District Boards
  • Panchayats
Other Authorities

            The constitution of India has failed to define the term other authorities which have become a bone of contention in many issues. To understand the meaning of other authorities we look into the judgements from Indian Courts.

Som Prakash Rekhi v Union of India

Broad and liberal interpretation must be given to the term other authorities keeping in mind the manifold function performed by the state. Hence, other authorities include both

  • Statutory
  • Non – Statutory Bodies


Test for Instrumentality of states

The Test for instrumentality of states was given in the case of R.D. Shetty v Union of India, which includes the following,

  • Financial resources of the state are the chief funding source
  • Entire share capital held by the government
  • Existence of Deep and Pervasive State Control
    • Appointment and removal of members
    • Rules made require prior approval of the government
  • Functions of Public Importance

For Corporations-Pradeep Kumar Biswas v Indian Institute of Chemical Biology

  • Department of Government is transferred to the corporation
  • When the corporation enjoys monopoly status which is conferred and protected by the State
  • Corporation need not necessarily created by statute

For Registered societies

In Ajay Hasia v Khalid Mujib, the court held that societies-registered under Societies Registration Act as a state based on the principle that “emphasis on not how the body is created by why it is created”.

Based on the above test, other authorities may include

  • Statutory corporations
  • Registered societies
  • Bodies with nexus to government functions

What is not a state?

In the case of Zee Tele Films v Union of India, the court held BCCI as not part of the state based on the following principles

  • Control must be pervasive and particular to the body in question.
  • Mere regulatory control whether under statue or otherwise would not serve to be part of the state
  • The facts established must cumulatively show that the body is financially, functionally, and administratively controlled by the government
  • If a private body performs a public function without the sanction of law, then by virtue of that functionality it cannot be called a state.
  • The socio-economic policy of the country has changed, the government is focusing more on governance than the commercial activities. Hence, further expansion of the scope for other authorities is not needed.

Is Judiciary a state?

  • Higher Judiciary is not considered a part of the state.
  • However, when judiciary exercises rulemaking power under art 145, it can be considered as a state- Rupa Ashok Hurra v Ashok Hurra


In conclusion, for a body to be determined as state the following facts must be proven cumulatively

article 12 state 



Rights In India


“All men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness”. Indian constitution also recognizes similar rights for its citizens under the fundamental rights chapter. Hohfeld is an American legal theorist who analysed how a law gives rights and corresponding duties to a person. This paper analyses the Fundamental rights enshrined by the constitution to its citizens based on Hohfeldian theory.

Hohfeldian theory of rights

Hohfeld distinguishes four elements or incidents with incident being a right on its own.

  • Claims
  • Privileges
  • powers

Ram holds a claim-right against Rahim to wash Ram’s scarf if and only if Rahim has a duty to Ram to wash Ram’s scarf. Rahim owes this duty to Ram, in particular. His duty is “directed toward” him. In this case Ram, himself, will presumably benefit, but that need not be the case. If Ram holds a claim-right against Rahim to wash Ram’s sister’s scarf, then Rahim still owes this duty to Ram, not to Ram’s sister. He owes this duty to Ram even if Ram hates both her sister and the scarf, although Ram probably has the power to waive her claim-right. A claim-right always has one or more correlative duties. It can be a duty to act, as in Rahim’s case, or to refrain from action: John holds a claim-right against peter to keep off his grass if and only if john has a duty to peter to keep off his grass. The absence of a duty is a privilege. Sita has a privilege-right to sing “Priya” if and only if Sita has no duty not to sing “Priya.” A license to practice medicine gives one a legal privilege-right to do so. Claims and privileges define all the actions that are forbidden, permitted, or required. The two remaining incidents (powers and immunities) are second-order incidents: they specify rights and duties regarding the creation, destruction, and modification of other incidents. Rahul has a power-right under a set of rules if and only if those rules give him the ability to alter someone’s Hohfeldian incidents (his own or someone else’s). If Rahul is a police officer directing traffic, then the legal rules give him a power-right to alter, by means of a hand gesture, a driver’s privilege-right to cross the intersection. If Ramya promises to cook Priya dinner, then Ramya exercises her power-right (under the moral rules of promising) to grant Priya a claim-right against Ramya to cook dinner. The opposite of a power is immunity. If Narendra lacks the ability to alter one of Sunny’s Hohfeldian incidents under a set of rules, then Sunny has immunity against Narendra with respect to that incident. Imagine that Sunny is a teenaged minor child and Narendra is his father. Narendra orders Sunny to mow the lawn every summer, which gives Sunny a duty to mow the lawn. When Sunny reaches legal adulthood, he acquires immunity against Narendra’s orders: Narendra loses the legal power to impose such duties on Sunny by means of orders. Hohfeld depicts the relationships between the incidents with two charts, which include some terminology that Hohfeld invented for the sake of logical completeness:


  • If someone has a claim, then she lacks a nonclaim.
  • If someone has a privilege, then she lacks a duty.
  • If someone has a power, then she lacks a disability.
  • If someone has immunity, then she lacks a liability.


  • If someone has a claim, then someone else has a duty.
  • If someone has a privilege, then someone else has a nonclaim.
  • If someone has a power, then someone else has a liability.
  • If someone has immunity, then someone else has a disability.

Fundamental Rights in India compared with Hohfeldian Incidents

The incidents can combine into various complex rights, such as Fundamental rights provided by the Indian Constitution. Ramesh’s Fundamental rights Consists of the following,

Ramesh has a privilege to form association or unions. He has no duty not to form association or unions.

  • Ramesh has a claim right to form associations or unions. The state has a duty not to infringe upon this claim right.
  • Ramesh has various powers over these claim-rights.
    1. If he is a railway coolie he can use this right and form an association along with his friend Danny.
    2. He has every right to renounce this membership of association with friend Danny whenever he wants
  • He can transfer his rights of membership to any other citizens.

If the state prohibits Ramesh from forming association without his consent then it is infringing his right. If the state is not justified in doing so, then philosophers would say that it does not just infringe his right, but the state violates them. If violation of rights is for special reasons, like in the interest of security of state, then it would be called justified infringement.










An agreement is not usually binding unless it is supported by consideration. This means that each party must give something in return for what is gained from the other party.


What is consideration? Consideration may be a thing or a service. It is usually described as being something which represents either some benefit to the person making a promise (the promisor) or some detriment to the person to whom the promise is made (the promisee), or both.

Promisor and promisee

In most contracts, two promises will be exchanged, so each party is both a promisor and a promisee.

Consideration need not benefit the promisor

Consideration need not benefit the promisor – so there can be consideration where the promisee suffers some detriment at the promisor’s request, but this gives no particular benefit to the promisor.

‘Executory’ and ‘executed’ consideration

Executory consideration is where something is to be done in the future after the contract has been formed. Executed consideration is where at the time of the formation of the contract the consideration has already been performed. Executed consideration usually occurs in unilateral contracts.

Consideration must not be past

Lawyers often say that consideration must not be past, but this is slightly confusing because the emphasis is not really about the time that the consideration was given, but rather about whether the consideration was given in exchange for the other party’s consideration. Consideration must be given in return for the promise or act of the other party

Roscorla v Thomas (1842)

The defendant in Roscorla v Thomas (1842) sold the claimant a horse. After the sale was completed, the defendant told the claimant that the animal was ‘sound and free from any vice’. This turned out to be rather far from the truth, and the claimant sued. The court held that the defendant’s promise was unenforceable, because it was made after the sale. If the promise about the horse’s condition had been made before, the claimant would have provided consideration for it by buying the horse. As it was made after the sale, the consideration was past, for it had not been given in return for the promise.

 Legal Principle

Consideration must be given in return for the promise of the other party.

Exceptions to the rule that past consideration is no consideration

Where the past consideration was provided at the promisor’s request, and it was understood that payment would be made in return.

Lampleigh v Brathwait (1615)

In Lampleigh v Brathwait (1615) Thomas Brathwait had been convicted of killing a man, and he asked Anthony Lampleigh to obtain a pardon for him from the King. After considerable trouble and expense, Lampleigh managed to do so. In the excitement of getting his pardon, Brathwait promised to pay Lampleigh £100, but later refused to hand over the money, so Lampleigh sued. It might appear that Lampleigh’s consideration was past, since he had secured the pardon before the promise to pay was made. In fact, the court upheld Lampleigh’s claim. It reasoned that Lampleigh had obtained the pardon at Brathwait’s own request, and this request carried with it the unspoken understanding that the service would be paid for. Lampleigh obtained the pardon after, and in return for, this implied promise to pay, and so obtaining the pardon was good consideration for the promise to pay. The later promise, specifying that £100 would be paid, was said to be merely confirmation of the original, unspoken one. This reasoning seems less odd when we consider that today there are many requests which carry with them unsaid promises to pay – when we ask a taxi driver to take us somewhere, or ask the milkman to leave an extra pint, we do not actually say that we will pay for those goods and services, but clearly it is understood by both parties that we will. It may well be that requests to secure royal pardons had the same well-understood effect in 1615. Legal Principle Past consideration is sufficient when it is provided at the promisor’s request and it is understood that payment will be made in return.

Consideration must be sufficient

Consideration must be sufficient but need not be adequate; the courts will not inquire into the adequacy of consideration, so long as there is some

Thomas v Thomas (1842)

In Thomas v Thomas (1842) the claimant was a widow whose husband had stated that if he died before his wife, she should be allowed to live in his house for the rest of her life, after which it was to pass to his sons. When the man died, the defendant, who was his executor, agreed that the widow could continue to occupy the house in return for a promise that she would pay £1 a year and keep the house in good repair. Despite this, sometime later, the defendant tried to evict the widow, so she sued for breach of contract. The defendant claimed that the earlier promise was not binding because of lack of consideration. However, the court held that the widow’s promise to pay £1 and keep up the repairs was sufficient consideration to make the owner’s promise binding.

Legal Principle

Consideration must be sufficient but need not be adequate.

Consideration must be of economic value

Consideration must have some physical value, rather than just an emotional or sentimental one: White v Bluett (1853), a father promised not to make his son repay money he had borrowed, if the son promised not to keep boring him with complaints. The court held that the son’s promise was not sufficient consideration to make his father’s promise binding, because it had no economic value.

Consideration can be a promise not to sue

If one party has a possible civil claim against the other, a promise not to enforce that claim is good consideration for a promise given in return

Alliance Bank Ltd v Broom (1864) Broom had an overdraft of £22,000 with the bank, and they asked him to provide some security. Mr Broom promised to do so, but never did, and as a result the bank sued him. Mr Broom argued that there was no consideration for his promise to provide security, but the court held that the consideration was provided by the bank’s implied promise not to sue for a while, giving Mr Broom time to provide security, even though they did sue fairly shortly afterwards.



Performance of an existing duty

Where a promisee already owes the promisor a legal duty, then in theory performing that duty should not in itself be consideration.

Existing duties can be divided into three main categories:

  • public duties
  • contractual duties to the promisor
  • Contractual duties to a third party.

Existing public duty

Where a promisee is under a public duty, but does something which goes beyond what they are bound to do under that duty, that extra act can amount to consideration

In Glasbrook Brothers Ltd v Glamorgan County Council (1925),Glasbrook Brothers were the owners of a coal mine in South Wales. Their employees went on strike and Glasbrook Brothers asked the police to place a guard at the coal mine during the strike. The police refused to do this as they considered that regular checks by a mobile police patrol would be sufficient to protect the mine. The mine owners therefore offered to pay the police £2,200 to cover the extra cost of having the police stationed at the mine full-time during the strike. When the strike was over, the mine owners refused to pay. They argued that the police had an existing duty to protect the mine and therefore had provided no consideration for their promise to pay. The House of Lords held that the police had provided an extra service which did amount to consideration. The police were merely under a public duty to maintain law and order and could choose how they achieved this. Viscount Cave LC said: If in the judgement of the police authorities, formed reasonably and in good faith, the garrison was necessary for the protection of life and property, then they were not entitled to make a charge for it. As on the facts this was not the case, they were entitled to charge for the extra service.

Existing contractual duty to the promisor

In the past, the rule was that performance of an existing contractual duty owed to a promisor was not consideration


 Stilk v Myrick (1809)

In Stilk v Myrick (1809) two sailors deserted a ship during a voyage and the captain was unable to find replacements for them. The eight remaining crew members were promised extra wages for sailing the ship back home shorthanded, but when they arrived back in London, the captain refused to pay the extra money. The sailors sued for it, but the court held that there was no consideration for the captain’s promise; the sailors had already contracted to sail to their destination and back, and that was all they had done.

Legal Principle

Performance of an existing contractual duty owed to a promisor is not normally consideration.

Williams v Roffey (1990)

In Williams v Roffey (1991) these principles were reconsidered by the Court of Appeal. Roffey were a building firm with a contract to refurbish a block of flats. They subcontracted the carpentry work on the project to Williams, agreeing to pay him £20,000 for the work. But before the work was finished, it became obvious that Williams had financial problems, which would prevent him finishing the work on time. Roffey’s agreement with the owners of the flats contained a penalty clause, which meant Roffey would lose out if the complete project was not finished on time. Roffey agreed that the original contract price had been too low, and their representative approached Williams, offering an extra £10,300 on top of the agreed price of £20,000 in return for finishing the job on schedule. The agreement also included changes to the working arrangements: instead of Williams working on several flats at once, he would finish one at a time, so allowing other contractors doing different work to come in after him. When the carpentry work was done, Roffey refused to honour their promise to pay the extra £10,300, so Williams sued for breach of contract. The Court of Appeal found that Roffey’s promise to pay extra was supported by valuable consideration: in return for Williams finishing the job on time, Roffey would avoid losing money under the penalty clause in their contract with the building’s owners, and the cost and inconvenience of finding another contractor to finish the job, and had also benefited from the altered working arrangements. Even though Williams was only doing what he had originally contracted to do, Roffey was receiving extra benefit. As a result of Williams v Roffey , the law now seems to be that if one party’s promise to perform an existing contractual duty to supply goods or services confers an additional practical benefit on the other party, then, providing that no duress is involved, it will be sufficient consideration to make a promise given in return binding, even though in legal terms they are only agreeing to carry out their existing contractual duty.

Legal Principle

If one party’s promise to perform an existing contractual duty to supply goods or services confers an additional practical benefit on the other party, then, providing that no duress is involved, it will be sufficient consideration to make a promise given in return binding.

Contractual duties to supply goods or services

As a result of Williams v Roffey, the law now seems to be that if one party’s promise to perform an existing contractual duty to supply goods or services confers an additional practical benefit on the other party, then, providing that no duress is involved, it will be sufficient consideration to make a promise given in return binding, even though in legal terms they are only agreeing to carry out their existing contractual duty.

Contractual duties to pay debts

Special rules apply to contractual duties regarding debts. Where someone owes another money and cannot pay the full amount, they will sometimes offer to pay a smaller sum, on condition that the creditor promises to accept it as full settlement for the debt – in other words, agrees not to sue later for the full amount. Even if such an agreement is made, it is only binding if the debtor provides some consideration for it by adding some extra element

Pinnel’s Case (1602)

In Pinnel’s Case (1602) Pinnel sued Cole for £8 10s, which Cole owed on a bond (a promise under seal to pay money). The debt had become due on 11 November. Cole argued that at Pinnel’s request, he had given him £5 2s 6d on 1 October, which Pinnel had accepted in full settlement of the debt. Pinnel actually won the case on a technicality, but the court made it clear that had it not been for that technicality, they would have found in favour of Cole, because of the fact that he had made payment earlier than the due date, and this amounted to fresh consideration for the promise to accept less than the full amount. The court stated: ‘Payment of a lesser sum on the day in satisfaction of a greater cannot be any satisfaction for the whole but a change in time or mode of payment, or the addition by the debtor of a tomtit, or canary or the like will suffice to constitute consideration for the [creditor’s promise to forgo his debt].’ In other words, if the debtor pays early, or in a more convenient place, or gives something else as well as the part-payment, the creditor is receiving some benefit and the debtor some detriment, and this is fresh consideration for the creditor’s new promise to accept part-payment and not insist on getting the whole amount. Suppose, for example, Ann lends Ben £100, and they agree that Ben will pay the money back in one month’s time. If Ann arrives on the appointed date, to find that Ben only has £40, and will only hand over that amount if Ann agrees that it is in full settlement for the debt, Ann can agree to this, and still sue Ben for the other £60 later – Ben has given no consideration for Ann’s promise to accept the part-payment, and so the promise is not binding. If, however, Ben pays the £40 before the month is up, or offers Ann £40 and a book, then if in either of these circumstances Ann agrees to accept the part-payment as full settlement, that promise will be binding because Ben has given consideration for it.

Legal Principle

 If a debtor offers to pay a reduced sum back to the lender in full and final settlement and the lender agrees to accept it, this agreement will only be binding if the debtor provides some extra element that can be treated as consideration.

Exceptions to the rule in Pinnel’s Case

The rule in Pinnel’s Case does not apply if there is a genuine dispute about whether the debt is actually owed, or about the amount owed ( Cooper v Parker (1885)). The rule in Pinnel’s Case does not apply to unliquidated damages. Composition agreements are binding. A creditor who accepts part-payment from a third party, in full settlement of the debtor’s liability, cannot then sue for the outstanding amount. Promissory estoppel also constitutes an exception to the rule in Pinnel’s Case .

Existing contractual duty to a third party In some cases, two parties make a contract to provide a benefit to someone who is not a party to the contract, known as a third party. If one of them (X) makes a further promise to that third party, to provide the benefit they have already contracted to provide, that further promise can be good consideration for a promise made by the third party in return – even though nothing more than the contractual duty is being promised by X


Scotson v Pegg (1861)

In Scotson v Pegg (1861) Scotson contracted with A to supply a cargo of coal to A, or to anyone A nominated. Scotson was instructed by A to deliver the coal to Pegg who was a third party to the original contract between Scotson and A. Pegg promised to unload the coal at a stated rate of pay. He subsequently failed to do the agreed unloading. Scotson sued Pegg, claiming that their promise to deliver the coal to him was consideration for his promise to unload it. Pegg claimed this could not be consideration, since Scotson was already bound to supply the coal under the contract with A. The court upheld Scotson’s claim: delivery of the coal was consideration because it was a benefit to Pegg, and a detriment to Scotson in that it prevented them from having the option of breaking their contract with A (in which case they would just pay damages to A) and having no liability to Pegg. However, there is some suggestion that Scotson had done more than he was bound to do under the earlier contract, and so provided additional consideration, and this means that the case is not entirely conclusive on the point we are discussing here.

Legal Principle

 If a contracting party promises to provide a benefit to a third party which they are already bound to provide under the contract, this promise can still be good consideration for a promise made by the third party.

Waiver and promissory estoppel

Waiver and promissory estoppel are both ways of making some kinds of promise binding even where there is no consideration. Promissory estoppel is a somewhat newer doctrine than waiver. It was developed by Lord Denning in Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd (1947). The precise extent of the doctrine of promissory estoppel is still unclear. What is clear is that the following conditions must be fulfilled before the doctrine can be applied.

  • A pre-existing contractual relationship
  • A promise
  • Inequitable to enforce strict legal rights.
  • Future rights not destroyed.
  • No new rights created.


Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd

The claimant owned a block of flats. In September 1939, it had leased the block to the defendant, who planned to rent out the individual flats, use the income to cover the payments on the lease, and make a profit on top. Unfortunately, these plans were rather spoilt by the fact that the Second World War had just broken out, and many people left London, making it difficult to find tenants. As a result, many of the flats were left empty. The claimant therefore agreed that the defendant could pay just half the ground rent stipulated in the lease. By 1945, the flats were full again, and the claimant sought the full ground rent for the last two quarters of 1945. The claimant stated that the agreement was only ever intended to last until the war was over, or the flats fully let, whichever was the sooner. Both events had happened by the time payment for the last two quarters of 1945 were due, and so the company believed it was entitled to full payment for that period. The court accepted this argument, holding that the full rent was payable for the two quarters in question, and from then on. Of more importance is the fact that Denning J went on to state that the claimant would not have been entitled to recover the rent for the period 1940–45, even though there was no consideration for the promise to accept the reduced rent, because of the equitable principle laid down in Hughes . In fact, this reasoning (which was obiter , because the claimant was not actually seeking to recover all the past rent) went further than that put forward in Hughes . In the earlier case the landlord’s rights had effectively been only temporarily suspended, but in High Trees , Denning J declared that the landlord’s claim for its full contractual rights for the period 1940–45 had been destroyed – by accepting the reduced rent for the wartime period, it lost its right to claim for arrears of rent, rather than simply suspending this right until the tenant could afford to pay.

Legal Principle

 Under the doctrine of promissory estoppel, a contracting party who promises not to enforce a contractual right will not be able to enforce that right later if it would be inequitable to do so, and the promise has been relied upon by the other party.




In sporting competitions, the winners, of big tournaments like the world cup, are usually big surprises as the most unexpected team win them. It is where the new champions are born. Although well-established and famous teams do become winners, there are cases where good and talented teams never win world cups. One such case is the South African cricket squad which after being declared favorites for many world cups have never won the cup. Why does a team touted as the best in the world have never won the world cup? What makes them more successful in other tournaments but fail miserably in the cup that matters the most?


One reason, why the South African cricket team cannot win world cups is that they take traditional approaches to team selection and don’t try to innovate. This method may be of help in bilateral tournaments and test matches, but when it comes to world cups, they are of no use. Only a unique and flexible approach to each and every game will win you matches in the world cups. For example, if we compare the 2011 world cup with 2015 world cup their bowling consisted of the same members, and no new players in spite of the vast differences in the playing conditions between the tournaments were included in the side. This type of selection in their bowling led to their downfall, as they failed miserably in the semifinals by conceding more than 290 runs in just 40 overs. If South Africa needs to win the world cup, they must be ready to innovate and shun their traditional approaches to team selections.


In the same way, their failure can be attributed to the lack of balance in the team. The squad has many superstars and good all-rounders, who can win games individually, but when it comes to playing as a team, they lack coherence and falter to perform. Since these players have immense potential as individuals, they are rarely left out of the squad and are always selected, to play, which results in less established but useful players being left out; thereby affecting the balance of the team. Another area that has been a cause of concern is the quota selection system in which it is mandatory to select players of colour; as a means of affirmative action and social justice. Although social justice and affirmative action in sports are needed, it needs to be implemented at the domestic level and not at the national scale, where only the best players, irrespective of race and creed, should be selected. For example in 2015, many felt a player like Ryan McLaren was left out because of his race and if selected would have provided the much-needed balance to the team.

Furthermore, lack of good quality spinners in their bowling department has become a major contributing factor for their losses. Since the side does not have a quality spinner, they suffer losses in conditions that supports spin bowling. The lack of quality spinners is also affecting their batters; this is evident from the fact that their hitters struggle to play good quality spinners. Imran Tahir, the lead spinner of the team, is 36 years old and became eligible to play only though naturalized citizenship of the country. The case of Tahir is real evidence that South African cricket system is not producing spinners in the country, and fundamental level changes have to be initiated. The fact that South Africa was unable to produce good spinners is an ominous indicator of them not innovating in the bowling department.


Thus, the reason for the lack of world cup, in the trophy cabinet of South Africa, is due to their inability to innovate and shun their traditional approaches. To succeed, they must make their selection policy more flexible; introduce fundamental changes in their domestic cricket structure and find methods to develop good quality spinners.


In politics, many people believe they have different choices to select from, but in reality, they are left with political parties having same ideologies with similar styles of functioning. The political parties in India go to a great extent in creating the perception that they are different from each other, but a careful analysis will reveal that they have a similar style of functioning. For example, in the state of Tamilnadu the two major parties AIADMK and DMK works in similar fashion in all the criteria of governing like Leading the party ,strategizing during elections, and handling important issues affecting the state.


First in terms of leadership, both parties have similar styles of functioning. During the elections, for the post of party presidency members of both the parties select their leader unanimously. In the last 3 decades, both DMK and AIADMK have selected the same incumbent leader of their respective parties without anybody opposing them, thereby, proving that there is little party democracy left within them. The leaders themselves, in turn, give the most important positions to those who are close and loyal towards them. For example, In DMK, next to party president most of the other important positions are held by the family and close friends of the party president. Similarly, in AIADMK, it is no wonder that most of the decisions are taken by the close friend of its leader .Furthermore, both leaders have shown very immature animosity towards each other like arresting the opposition leaders by registering various cases against them and also, scrapping their welfare schemes .Thus,in terms of leadership style, there is little difference between the party leaders.


Next, they adopt similar strategies when facing elections. From candidate selection to party manifesto, these two parties follow very similar approach which in a way has brought immense success to them. During the recent elections, both parties selected candidates based on caste, money and loyalty. The manifesto of both the parties contained various free riders and appeasement towards the section of the population that they think will vote for them. During the vote canvassing both parties fielded various celebrities like film stars, cricketers, used the social media and news channels for advertising and illegal form of paid news. Last but not the least both distributed cash to voters as a means to lure them.


When it comes down to ideology and other important issues affecting the state, the parties act in no different manner. Both parties adopted a similar stand on the Srilankan Tamil’s issue by calling for an immediate ceasefire of the war and giving Tamils complete autonomy in their area, and advocated the central government to withdraw logistical support to the Srilankan army. In the similar fashion, the kudankulam issue saw both parties openly supporting the villagers and requesting the central government to stop using the nuclear reactor for power generation. In all other issues like liquor prohibition, river water management, agriculture, they take the same stand as one another.


In conclusion, the people of Tamilnadu are left with little choice to choose from the elections. The major parties in the fray DMK and AIADMK have the same ideology and are no different to each other. Their leaders work in a very similar fashion. Their stand on various issues of Tamilnadu polity is similar as well. Hence, what may seem as two parties with major difference is a myth, and in essence they are same in ideologies, leadership and functioning.




Public administration is as old as society and state themselves. It evolved as the agency of state which runs the administration of the country. However, conscious theorizing about it is, perhaps, less than a century old. According to Woodrow Wilson the late evolution of public administration was due to the fact that the Governments had passed through three Stages-the period of absolute rulers; the period of struggle for constitutionalism and popular control; and the period when on winning political battles, people started thinking about freedom and perfect machinery for democratic administration. The first systematic writer on public administration was the American president Woodrow Wilson whose article entitled “The study of public administration” in the political science quarterly in 1887 set the ball rolling for the study of public administration as a separate discipline.

In 1900 Frank Goodnow in his influential work ‘Politics and Administration’, put forth the thesis that the fields of politics and administration were separate areas of public life and hence the two must be separate and public administration must study only the field of administration and the study of politics to political science which resulted in the development of permanent civil Service free from political influence.

Many later writers have attempted to reduce the scope of public administration in an attempt to provide focus to the study of modalities of policy implementation rather than policy formation. ” Introduction to the study of public administration “, by L.D White published in 1926 focused on the study of various principles of public administration and promoted further development public administration in the U.S. A. White has defined public administration as consisting of all those operations having for their purpose the fulfillment or enforcement of public policy. The emphasis here is on the activities of the executive branch of the government and the classic work L.D. White had the effect of directing the study of public administration towards the executive branch. Other prominent scholars like Luther Gullick and Herbert Simon also had the same opinion.

By 1939 public administration had made great strides in its development in to a science and in that year the American society for public administration was formed with its quarterly journal, the Public Administration Review. The American society of Public administration provided a forum for the scholars and practitioners to meet together and exchange views which helped in the spread of theories, ideas and led to the development of science of public administration. This development in the U.S.A was also aided by some management scholars who developed the scientific management movement in the country. The ‘father’ of the scientific Management Movement in the U.S.A was F. W. Taylor. The Human Relations school of Elton mayo (to which school Herbert Simon belonged) contributed a human dimension to public administration which emphasized on the individual and his behavior in organizations. This development turned public administration from purely a mechanical study of the process of policy implementation as projected by Willoughby in to a human subject interested in the role of the individual in the organization and in devising means to get the best out of the individuals manning the administration.

In the post war years, public administration changed its character and there was a change in its scope and methods of investigation. Till the end of the World War II, the development of the science of public administration was confined to the U S A and Europe and most of the scholars and practitioners in the field studied the administrative systems of the USA or Europe and arrived at generalizations which they tried to apply to in all countries. After World War II came to an end, there came about the independence of the colonies and the need for development of administrative systems suited to these colonies arose. Scholars, therefore, found the need to arrive at generalizations in the field of public administration which would be applicable in these countries with diverse political economic and social systems. Led by scholars like F.W. Riggs, Ferrel Heady, Gabriel A. Almond and others, the comparative public Administration came in to being and it started the comparative study of systems of public administration, comparing the systems of different countries, developed, underdeveloped, and arriving at principles applicable across a broad range of countries. The comparative public administration movement greatly broadened the study of public administration by emphasizing the development of principles of administration applicable across the board in different situations. It was a timely extension in the scope of the subject because it greatly helped the process of economic development in the developing countries of Asia and Africa and made the study of public administration truly universal. The contribution of Ferrel Heady and F.W. Riggs in this area is important, because they provided the impetus needed for the extension of the scope of public administration. This led to the development of the comparative administration movement and the rise of Development Administration as an important part of the public administration. The modern view of public administration is that it is government-in-action.


Woodrow Wilson is regard as the founder or father of study of public administration. His title rests on his Seminal essay entitled “The Study of public administration” which was published in the Political Science quarterly in 1887. Wilson wrote his essay, “The Study of Public Administration” in the era of the Progressive movement which covered the last two decades of the nineteenth Century. In the United States, this movement was developed in response to increasing Urbanization, immigration, the seeming loss of traditional values, Corruption, etc. There was maladministration due to rampant political corruption and the Prevalence of the “spoils system” introduced by President Andrew Jackson. Under this system only the loyal political supporters of the Party’s Victorium at the Polls were appointed to administrative posts As a consequence less qualified and sometimes Unqualified people entered the Public service and contributed to the increasing inefficiency of public administration.

Influenced by the progressive movement Woodrow Wilson was also convinced that there was a need to reform the government and the reforms should be in the field of public administration so as to make it more efficient. It was in this context of prevalent maladministration and the consequent administrative reforms that Wilson emphasized in his essay, the development of the science of public administration as the appropriate cure for corrupt and inefficient administrative system. This vision of Wilson also marked the emergence of public administration as a separate and independent field of Study.

Wilson’s View on Politics and Administration

Woodrow Wilson is usually regarded as the Originator Of the doctrine of politics- administration dichotomy. In his essay Wilson divided government into two separate spheres of politics and administration. In his opinion, politics is dealt with questions of policy formulation; administration is dealt with carrying them out. He defined public administration as “detailed and systematic execution of public law”.

Wilson characterized public administration as a field of business .He Said, “the field of administration is a field of business….. Removed from the hurry and strife of politics” He Stated that administration lies outside the proper sphere of politics. Administrative questions are not political questions. Although politics sets the tasks for, it should not be suffered to manipulate its offices”. He further observed that “public administration is a Part of political life only as the methods of counting house are a Part of the life of the society; only as machinery is part of a manufactured product”. To Wilson, politics is the special Province of the statesman and administration that of the technical official. Wilson Wanted that administrators should not involve themselves in the political process .Thus Wilson tried to establish the distinction between politics and administration.

By expounding the politics –Administration dichotomy theory, Wilson urged strongly for the creation of a technically competent and politically neutral administrative system for a democracy. It should be separate from the political system, although it is under democratic control. Wilson believed that if public administration could be separated from the practical politics and the influences of the spoils system prevailed at that time in the USA, it might become more business-like and develop on scientific lines in its own right. Thus his goal was to call attention to the need for efficient administration and to keep it out of Partisan Politics. Wilson saw the Study Of public administration as the latest fruit of that Study of science of politics which was begun some two thousand two hundred Years ago. The foundations of public administration “are those deep and permanent principles of politics”. Thus for Wilson, it is said, the Study of public administration, derived from the Study of politics, was to be distinguished from it, but never divorced from its “maxims” and “truths”. To Wilson, public administration was much more than technical detail and it was to be conducted in a political context .Thus he treated “politics and public administration as two sides of a coin”.

Table 1 Politics and (public administration) Dichotomy -Dividing Politics and Administration



Deals with the “expression of the will of the people “.

Deals with the “Execution of the will of the people”.

Deals with Politicians

Deals with Civil Servants

One becomes Politician by his popularity ,either through positive or negative popularity

Positive Popularity , e.g., Sonia Gandhi

Negative Popularity e.g. Poolan Devi

One becomes Civil servants by his intelligence

One becomes Politics through election

One becomes civil servant through selection

Prior training is not given to politician

Civil servants are professionals

Power is the Centre of study in politics i.e , process of capturing and retaining power

Running administration successfully is the central focus here