Pradeep Kumar Biswas and Ors. vs Indian Institute of Chemical Biology and Ors.
- ByPravleen Kaur --
- 03 May 2025 --
- 0 Comments
I. Introduction
The case of A Pradeep Kumar Biswas and Ors. v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology and Ors. dealt with the question of whether the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) is considered a 'State' under Article 12 of the Indian Constitution. [Paragraph 1]
II. Reconsideration of Sabhajit Tewary Case
The Court reconsidered the case of Sabhajit Tewary and found that the decision was erroneous. It was held that the CSIR is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. [Paragraph 2]
III. Tests for Determining 'State' Status
The CSIR falls within the range of Article 12 when judged by the tests formulated in Ajay Basia's case. The question in each case is whether the body is financially, functionally, and administratively dominated by the government. Control must be particular to the body and pervasive. Regulatory control does not make the body a State. [Paragraph 1]
IV. Correcting Erroneous Precedents
A long-standing precedent should not be upheld if it is found to be erroneous and cannot be reconciled with subsequent decisions. The court has a duty to correct its mistakes. [Paragraph 2, citing Bengal Immunity Co Ltd v, State of Bihar and Ors., AIR (1955) SC 661, C]
V. Interpretation of 'State' and 'Authority'
The definition in Article 12 of the Constitution is not exhaustive and is obvious. The words 'State' and 'Authority' in Article 12 are still being interpreted by the Courts. [Paragraph 3]
VI. Notification Confirming CSIR as 'State'
The notification bringing CSIR within the scope of the Administrative Tribunals Act confirmed that CSIR was considered a State under Article 12. This meant that employees of CSIR could bring their service disputes to the Administrative Tribunals instead of the High Court. [Paragraph 2]
VII. Distinction Between Instrumentality/ Agency and 'Other Authorities'
The principles for determining if a body is 'the State' remain the same, but the emphasis on how they apply to specific facts is different. It's important to differentiate between an instrumentality or agency of 'the State' and an authority included in 'other authorities'. This distinction cannot be erased. [Paragraph 2]
An authority must be sui Juris to fall within the meaning of 'other authorities' under Article 12. A juridicial entity may also be an instrumentality or agency of the State, but not vice versa. [Paragraph 3]
VIII. Criteria for 'Authority' Under Article 12
The entity must be created by a statute, have power to make laws or issue binding directions, and be of public importance to be considered an authority under Article 12. [Paragraph 4]
IX. Tests for Instrumentality/Agency of the State
The question of whether an entity is an 'authority' cannot be determined by applying Ajay Hasia tests. The tests are relevant for determining if an entity is an instrumentality or agency of the State, but not all tests need to be positive to qualify. The real source of governing power must be identified, and the entity must have deep and pervasive government control to be considered a State instrumentality or agency. [Paragraph 5]
X. Scope of 'Other Authorities' Under Article 12
The Framers of the Constitution used the word "the State" in a wider sense than usual, including "other authorities" as long as they are within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India. The expression 'under the control of the Government of India' in Article 12 qualifies 'other authorities'. [Paragraph 6, citing 129-C, D]
XI. Limitations on Expanding 'State' Doctrine
Expanding the 'State' doctrine through judicial wisdom should be accompanied by wise limitations to prevent overreach. [Paragraph 7, citing 129-E, F]
XII. Expansion and Limitations of Article 12
The definition of the State in Article 12 has been expanded to include various instrumentalities and agencies performing State functions. The limitations and expansion of Article 12 must be determined based on constitutional jurisprudence. [Paragraph 8]
XIII. Instrumentalities and Agencies Subject to Constitutional Limitations
The State can set up instrumentalities or agencies that are subject to the same limitations as the State itself. This was affirmed in several Supreme Court cases. Sabhajit Tewary, a stenographer with the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research, filed a writ petition for parity of remuneration, but the Court denied the application, stating that CSIR was not an "authority" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. This decision is now being reconsidered. [Paragraph 9]
XIV. Reconsideration of 'State' Definition and Article 12
The court reversed a decision after considering the definition of 'State' in Article 12 and the importance of Article 12 in ensuring constitutional protection of individual rights against the State. The decisions on this matter have expressed both narrow and liberal views. [Paragraph 2]
XV. Widening of Right to Equality Through Judicial Interpretation
Benjamin Cardozo's 'The Nature of the Judicial Process' discusses the widening of the right to equality through judicial interpretation. This includes protection against arbitrary or irrational acts of the State. It also addresses the curbing of arbitrary exercise of power by 'centres of power'. [Paragraph 4]
XVI. Evolution of 'State' Definition
The definition of 'State' was initially limited to authorities or those with similar powers mentioned in the definition of Article 12. But it later came to be understood with reference to the available remedies against it. For example, a statutory corporation with regulations framed by such Corporation pursuant to statutory powers was considered a State. [Paragraph 12]
The Court decided that the expression "other authorities" in Article 12 includes all constitutional or statutory authorities with powers conferred by law, even if some of those powers are for commercial activities. [Paragraph 12, citing E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1974) 2 SCR 348]
XVII. Expansion of 'State' Concept
In Praga Tools Corporation v. Imanua/ (1969) 3 SCR 773, the case held that an application for a writ of mandamus could not be brought against a company for enforcement of statutory or public duty. In 1975, the concept of "State" in Article 12 was redefined to include public authorities with statutory duties for the benefit of the public. [Paragraph 6, citing [1969] 3 SCR 773 and [1975] 3 SCR 619]
XVIII. Indicia for Identifying State Agency or Instrumentality
Mathew J in his concurring judgment in Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagatram Sardar Singh Raghuvanshi (1975) 3 SCR 619 propounded four indicia for identifying an agency or instrumentality of the State: (1) A finding of the state financial support plus an unusual degree of control over the management and policies might lead one to characterize an operation as state action. [Paragraph 8]
XIX. Sabhajit Tewary Case and CSIR
In Sabhajit Tewary, the Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that CSIR is not an "authority" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. The Court noted that CSIR does not have a statutory character like other corporations and is a society incorporated under the Societies Registration Act. The Court also relied on cases holding that employees of companies incorporated under the Companies Act do not enjoy the protection available to Government servants under Article 311. [Paragraph 8]
However, the Court in the present case found that both premises were not relevant and contrary to the 'voice' and 'hands' approach in Sukhdev Singh. [Paragraph 8]
XX. Overruling Sabhajit Tewary
The Court held that Sabhajit Tewary should not stand as an authority merely because it has stood for 25 years. A new fact relating to CSIR has come to light since the decision in Sabhajit Tewary, which vindicates the conclusion reached and fortifies the decision to deliver the final blow to the already weakened decision. The notification by the Central Government confirms that CSIR is a State within the meaning of Article 12. [Paragraph 16]
XXI. Notification Under Administrative Tribunals Act
The notification issued by the Central Government in 1986 under Article 14 (2) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 served to shift the service disputes of the employees of CSIR from the jurisdiction of the High Court to the Administrative Tribunals. [Paragraph 17]
XXII. Conclusion
The matter was remitted back to the appropriate Bench to be dealt with in the light of the decision that CSIR is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. [Paragraph 17]
RELATED Blog
0 comments