SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2002 Supreme(SC) 503

N. S. HEGDE, ARIJIT PASAYAT, DORAISWAMY RAJU, R. C. LAHOTI, S. P. BHARUCHA, S. S. M. QUADRI, RUMA PAL
Pradeep Kumar Biswas – Appellant
Versus
Indian Institute Of Chemical Biology – Respondent


Judgement Key Points

Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, the following key points can be summarized:

  • The legal interpretation of whether an entity qualifies as a 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution hinges on whether it is an instrumentality, agency, or authority of the government (!) (!) .
  • An entity is considered an 'authority' if it is created by a statute or functions under statutory powers that confer upon it the capacity to make binding decisions or issue directives with legal consequences (!) (!) .
  • The determination of whether an entity is an 'instrumentality or agency' of the State involves examining factors such as ownership, control, financial support, and the nature of functions performed. A body with deep, pervasive control and substantial financial backing from the government is more likely to be classified as an instrumentality or agency (!) (!) .
  • The tests for establishing whether a body is an 'instrumentality or agency' are not rigid; rather, they require a cumulative assessment of relevant factors, including financial dependence, administrative control, and the nature of functions (!) (!) .
  • Merely receiving government funding or having some government participation does not automatically make an entity a 'State'. The control must be deep and pervasive, and the entity must perform functions of governmental importance or be closely related to governmental activities (!) (!) .
  • An entity that is organized as a registered society or a corporation is not automatically excluded from being a 'State'. The true test involves examining the extent of government control, ownership, and whether the entity acts as a surrogate or instrumentality of the government (!) (!) .
  • The distinction between 'instrumentality or agency' and 'authority' is significant; an authority must be an independent legal entity with statutory powers, while an instrumentality or agency is typically a body through which the government acts (!) (!) .
  • The legal and constitutional framework emphasizes that the expansion of the concept of 'State' is meant to ensure that bodies performing public functions or exercising governmental powers are subject to constitutional limitations and fundamental rights protections (!) (!) .
  • The presence of government control, funding, or influence alone does not suffice; the nature of the functions, the degree of control, and the legal powers conferred are critical in determining the status of an entity as a 'State' (!) (!) .
  • Ultimately, each case requires a factual and holistic assessment of the entity's structure, control, functions, and funding to determine whether it constitutes part of the 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 (!) (!) .

Please let me know if you need further elaboration or specific legal guidance on any of these points.


JUDGMENT

Ruma Pal, J. (For herself and on behalf of CJI, Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, N. Santosh Hegde, Arijit Pasayat, JJ.)—

In 1972 Sabhajit Tewary, a Junior Stenographer with the 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 the CSIR. His claim was based on Article 14 of the Constitution. A Bench of five judges of this Court denied him the benefit of that Article because they held in Sabhajit Tewary v. Union of ­India1 that the writ application was not maintainable against CSIR as it was not an ­‘‘au­thority” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. The correctness of the ­decision is before us for re-consideration.

2. The immediate cause for such re-consideration is a writ application filed by the appellants in the Calcutta High Court challenging the termination of their services by the respondent No. 1 which is a unit of CSIR. They prayed for an interim order before the learned Single Judge. That was refused by the Court on the prima view that the writ application was itself not maintainable against the respondent No. 1. T
































































































































































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top