Back
2022 Supreme(Del) 880
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Satish Chandra Sharma, Subramonium Prasad, JJ.
Prakash Singh - Appellant
Versus
Union Of India & Anr. - Respondents
LPA 438/2022 & CM Appls. 31859/2022, 31861/2022
Decided On : 27-07-2022
Mr. Raghav Sharma, Mr. Mukesh Sharma & Mr. Kunal Tiwari, Advocates, for the Appellant; Mr. Piyush Beriwal, Senior Panel Counsel with Ms. Geetanjali Tyagi, Govt. Pleader. Mr. Krishan Karthik, Advocate, for the Respondent No. 2/UOI
The main legal point established in the judgment is the limitation of writ jurisdiction against private entities not discharging a public function.
Headnote:
Letters Patent Act - Writ Jurisdiction - 1865 - Section 151 CPC - The court discussed the applicability of the writ jurisdiction against a news agency and the interpretation of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The court referred to judgments in Ramakrishna Mission & Anr. vs. Kago Kunya & Ors., (2019) 16 SCC 303 and in Binny Ltd. Vs. Sadasivan, (2005) 6 SCC 657. The court also analyzed the tests laid down by the Apex Court in Pradeep Kumar Biswas vs. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology and others, (2002) 5 SCC 111 to determine if an entity is an instrumentality or agency of the State.
Fact of the Case:
The Appellant alleged racial discrimination and harassment by a news agency and filed a writ petition seeking relief.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the news agency was not amenable to writ jurisdiction as it did not fall under the definition of State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India and was not performing a public duty.
Issues: The main issue was the applicability of writ jurisdiction against a private news agency and the interpretation of Article 12 of the Constitution of India.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the news agency, being a private entity, was not discharging a public function and therefore not amenable to the writ jurisdiction.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and costs of Rs. 50,000/- were imposed on the Appellant for filing a frivolous petition and appeal.
JUDGMENT
Subramonium Prasad, J. - The instant LPA has been preferred under Clause X of the Letters Patent Act, 1865 read with Section 151 CPC seeking setting aside of the Order dated 02.06.2022 passed by the Ld. Single Judge in W.P.(C) 9134/2022 whereby the writ petition filed by the Appellant herein was dismissed.
2. The facts, in brief, leading to the instant appeal are that the Respondent No. 2/Agence France Press is a news agency (hereinafter referred to as 'news agency') having its headquarters at Paris, France and its branch at Janpath, New Delhi. It is stated that the Appellant joined the Respondent No. 2/Agence France Press (AFP) in the year 2001. It is stated that in the year 2011, the Appellant applied for the post of Chief Photographer South-Asia in Agence France Press. It is stated that, thereafter, the Appellant applied for the post of Chief Photographer for India Region and on 20.11.2017, the Appellant was appointed as Chief Photographer for India Region. It is alleged by the Appellant that he was being racially discriminated and harassed at the Respondent No. 2/Agence France Press.
3. The Appellant approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) 9134/2022 with the following prayers:
'a) Issue a Writ/Order/Direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondent No. 2 to not to discriminate the Petitioner on the basis of race, place of origin, colour etc. or in any way against the law of the land.
b) Issue a Writ/Order/Direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondent No. 2 to allow the Petitioner to enjoy the benefits as are enjoyed by several others of the Respondent No. 2's organisation.
c) Pass any other Writ(s)/Order(s)/Direction(s)/Relief(s) in favour of the Petitioner and against the Respondents in the interest of justice.'
4. A preliminary objection has been raised by the learned counsel appearing for the Respondents in the instant appeal by stating that the writ petition is not maintainable against the Respondent No. 2/Agence France Press for the reason that said news agency, against whom reliefs are being sought, does not come within the definition of State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India.
5. The Ld. Single Judge vide impugned order dated 02.06.2022 placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramakrishna Mission & Anr. vs. Kago Kunya & Ors., (2019) 16 SCC 303 and in Binny Ltd. Vs. Sadasivan, (2005) 6 SCC 657, and held that Respondent No. 2/Agence France Press is not amenable to writ jurisdiction as it does not have an authority under Article 12 of the Constitution of India and is also not performing any public duty and, therefore, dismissed the Writ Petition.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the Appellant contends that Respondent No. 2/Agence France Press has been constituted by the Act of Parliament of France and being a news agency is performing a public function and is hence amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court. He places reliance on the judgment of this Court in ABC vs. Commissioner of Police and Ors., passed in W.P.(C) No. 12730/2005 dated 05.02.2013 and Sangamitra Acharya and Ors. vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and Ors., passed in W.P.(C) No. 1804/2017 dated 18.04.2018.
7. Heard learned counsels appearing for the parties and perused the material on record.
8. A Seven Bench Judge of the Apex Court in Pradeep Kumar Biswas vs. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology and others, (2002) 5 SCC 111 has elaborated the tests to determine as to whether an entity is an instrumentality or agency of the State or not and observed as under:
'98. We sum up our conclusions as under:
(1) Simply by holding a legal entity to be an instrumentality or agency of the State it does not necessarily become an authority within the meaning of 'other authorities' in Article 12. To be an authority, the entity should have been created by a statute or under a statute and functioning with liability and obligations to the public. Further, the statute creating the entity should have vested that entity
