Judgement

RANGANATH MISRA, J. : - This appeal by special leave calls in question the judgment of a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in a Letters Patent Appeal upholding the decision of a learned single Judge* rejecting the writ petition of the appellant. The appellant was an employee of the Institute of Constitutional and Parliamentary Studies (hereinafter referred to as ICPS for short) and in a disciplinary action he was dismissed from service by order date 17th Nov. 1982. When he assailed the order in a writ petition before the High Court, the question whether ICPS was State within the meaning of Art. 12 of the Constitution came for consideration as the major issue arising in the matter. The learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition by holding that the employer was neither an agency nor an instrumentality of the Government and did not constitute State within the meaning of Art. 12, and, therefore, was not subject to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court. The appeal against the judgment of the learned single Judge was dismissed on 1st Nov. 1983.

* Reported in (1983) 47 Fac LR 526

2. In course of hearing of the appeal Dr. Anand Prakash appearing for ICPS fairly stated that whether the Institute be State or not within the meaning of Art. 12 of the Constitution, the employer was prepared to give a fresh opportunity to the appellant to meet the charges so as to dispel from his mind the feeling that he has not been given reasonable opportunity to defend himself. Ordinarily, with that concession the impugned order entailing the dismissal of the employee and the judicial determination against the appellant should have been set aside and the matter should have gone before the enquiry officer for affording reasonable opportunity to the appellant of being heard against the charges. Dr. Anand Prakash, however, invited us to enter into the merits of the issue as to whether ICPS constitutes State within the constitutional meaning of the term. The Union of India which appears before us through counsel also wanted that the question should be decided. Thereupon we suggested to the appellant who was till then appearing in person to get represented through counsel so that the matter could be appropriately argued on his behalf also. He has been rendered suitable assistance by the SC Legal Aid Committee and Mr. P. P. Rao, Senior Counsel, has appeared on his behalf.

3. The main question for consideration now, therefore, is whether ICPS is State. For appropriate consideration of this question it is necessary to look into the constitution of the body, the purpose for which it has been created, the manner of its functioning, including the mode of its funding and the broad features which have been found by this Court in several decisions to be relevant in the matter of determining a dispute of this type. Article 12 of the Constitution provides an inclusive definition of the term State by saying :-

"In this part, unless the context otherwise requires, the State includes the Government and Parliament of India and the Government and the State 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."

Obviously ICPS can become State only if it is found to be an authority within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India.

4. ICPS, respondent 2, is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 21 of 1860, and was registered on 9th March 1965. As would appear from its Memorandum of Association, the founder members were 19 in number - 13 being members besides a President and five Vice-Presidents. The first President of the Society was the then Speaker of the Lok Sabha. The five Vice-Presidents were the then Minister of Railways, Minister of Law and Social Security, Minister of Communication and Parliamentary Affairs, a former Chief Justice of India and a former Attorney General of India. Dr. L. S. Singhvi, then a member o