PRADEEP KUMAR BISWAS V. INDIAN INSTITUTE OF CHEMICAL BIOLOGY (2002) 5 SCC 111

PRADEEP KUMAR BISWAS V. INDIAN INSTITUTE OF CHEMICAL BIOLOGY  (2002) 5 SCC 111

 

FACTS

Sabhajit Tewary, a Junior Stenographer at Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution claiming parity of remuneration with the Stenographers who were newly recruited to CSIR. His claim was based on Article 14 of the Constitution.a five judge bench of this Hon'ble court denied him the benefit of that Article because they held in Sabhajit Tewary v. Union of India that the writ application was not maintainable against CSIR as it was not an “authority” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution.

 

ISSUE

The issue pertaining to the current case reflected whether CSIR was a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Indian Constitution and if it is, should the court reverse a judgement that stood for over a quarter of a century.

 

JUDGEMENT AND ANALYSIS

1. This Hon'ble court observed that initially the definition of state was treated as exhaustive and confined to the authorities or those which could be read ejusdem generis with the authorities mentioned in the definition of Article 12 itself. Further, its definition came to be read with reference to the remedies available against it. For instance, a writ of mandamus was available for enforcement of statutory duties of a public nature. Thus a statutory corporation, with regulations framed by such corporation pursuant to statutory powers was considered a State, and the public duty was limited to those which were created by statute.
2. Here, this Hon'ble court with a Seven Judge Bench overruled its Five Judge Bench judgement Sabhajit Tewary v. Union of India. The judgement held that the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), a body registered under the societies registration act, was not a state as it was a non statutory body. Sabhajit Tewari’s case was decided after Sukhdev vs Bhagatram but it failed to follow its observations. This Hon'ble  court made observations in Sukhdev’s case to the effect that a non- statutory body could be treated as a “State” if it could be regarded as an agency or instrumentality of the government but, such observations had no impact on Sabhajit case
3. In Ajay Hasia v Khalid Mujib, it was held that the concept of instrumentality or agency wasn’t limited to corporations but also extended towards a company or a society. Therefore, the society in question was acknowledged as an “Authority” under Article 12 of the Constitution. It also laid down tests to adjudge whether a body was an instrumentality of the government or not. However, the Hon'ble court in the present case concluded that the tests formulated in Ajay Hasia case were not a set of rigid principles and if such a body falls within such principles it mustn’t be always considered under Article 12 of the Constitution. This Hon'ble court made general observations stating “whether in the light of the cumulative facts as established, the body is financially, functionally and administratively dominated by or under the control of the Government. Such control must be particular to the body in question and must be pervasive. If this is found then the body is a State within Article 12. On the other hand, when the control is merely regulatory whether under statute or otherwise, it would not serve to make the body a State.”
4. Hence, this Hon'ble court held that the CSIR was an authority under Article 12 bound by Article 14 and overruled the Sabhajit Tewary case.
5. The minority opinion within the judgement did not agree with the overrule of Sabhajit Tewary case and wasn’t in favour of accepting CSIR within the ambit of “State” under Article 12.