G. BASI REDDY V. INTERNATIONAL CROPS RESEARCH INSTITUTE (2003) 4 SC 225

BASI REDDY V. INTERNATIONAL CROPS RESEARCH INSTITUTE (2003) 4 SC 225

 

FACTS

The appellants were employees of the respondent no. 1 (ICRISAT). Their services were terminated. They filed writ petitions before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh against ICRISAT and the Union of India. The writ petitions were dismissed. The first writ petition so dismissed was W.P. No. 2730/1981 (K.S. Mathew v. ICRISAT). A second group of writ petitions was dismissed on 30th June 1988. The dismissals are the subject matter of these appeals. Both the Division Benches held that ICRISAT was an international organisation and was immune from being sued because of a notification issued in 1972 under the United Nations (Privileges and Immunities) Act, 1947 and that a writ under Article 226 could not be issued to ICRISAT.

 

ISSUE

The issue pertaining to the current case reflected whether the High Court was correct in ruling that the ICRISAT was not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution.

 

JUDGEMENT AND ANALYSIS

1. This Hon'ble court held that ICRISAT was not considered as a “State” or “any other authority” as per Article 12 of the Constitution. The facts narrated clearly showed that it didn’t fulfil any tests required to ascertain a body as a “state” or “authority” under Article 12. It wasn’t set up by the government nor is it controlled or accountable to the government. Moreover it provided its services voluntarily to other countries as well.
2. The court observed that a writ under Article 226 also lies against a “person” for “any other purpose”. The power of the High Court to issue such a writ “to any person” only meant that the power to issue such a writ to any person to whom, according to well-established principles, a writ lies. It was further observed that a writ under Article 226 can lie against a “person” if it is a statutory body or performs a public function or discharges a public or statutory duty. ICRISAT has not been set up by a statute nor are its activities statutorily controlled. The primary activity of ICRISAT is to conduct research and training programmes in the sphere of agriculture purely on a voluntary basis. A service voluntarily undertaken cannot be said to be a public duty. Besides ICRISAT has a role which extends beyond the territorial boundaries of India and its activities are designed to benefit people from all over the world. While the Indian public may be the beneficiary of the activities of the institute, it certainly cannot be said that the ICRISAT owes a duty to the Indian public to provide research and training facilities.
3. Hence, the court held that the ICRISAT was neither a state nor an authority as it was not formulated by a statute, nor were its activities controlled by a statute. It also failed to perform any public or statutory duty to a public function. Hence, writ petition of the appellant was not maintainable against ICRISAT.