Advocates:
DEBA PRASAD MUKHERJEEMADHU SIKRI

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 1 of 18

CASE NO.:

Appeal (civil) 992 of 2002

PETITIONER:

PRADEEP KUMAR BISWAS

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

IBNIDOILAONGYIN&STOIRTSU.TE OF CHEMICAL

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 16/04/2002

BENCH:

CJI, Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, N. Santosh Hegde, Ruma Pal & Arijit Pasayat

JUDGMENT:

J U D G M EN T

RUMA PAL,J

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 Tewari V. Union of India

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.

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. The appeal was also

dismissed in view of the decision of this Court in Sabhajit

Tewary’s case .

Challenging the order of the Calcutta High Court, the

appellants filed an appeal by way of special leave before this

Court. On 5th August, 1986 a Bench of two Judges of this Court

referred the matter to a Constitution Bench being of the view that

the decision in Sabhajit Tewary required re-consideration

"having regard to the pronouncement of this Court in several

subsequent decisions in respect of several other institutes of

similar nature set up by the Union of India".

The questions therefore before us are - is the CSIR a State

within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution and if it is

should this Court reverse a decision which has stood for over a

quarter of a century?

The Constitution has to an extent defined the word ’State’ in

Article 12 itself as including:

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 2 of 18

"the Government and Parliament of India and

the Government and the 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".

That an ’inclusive’ definition is generally not exhaustive is

a statement of the obvious and as far as Article 12 is concerned,

has been so held by this Court . The words ’State’ and

’Authority’ used in Article 12 therefore remain, to use the words

of Cardozo , among "the great generalities of the Constitution"

the content of which has been and continues to be supplied by

Courts from time to time.

It would be a practical impossibility and an unnecessary

exercise to note each of the multitude of decisions on the point. It

is enough for our present purposes to merely note that the

decisions may be categorized broadly into those which express a

narrow and those that express a more liberal view and to consider

some decisions of this Court as illustrative of this apparent

divergence. In the ultimate analysis the difference may perhaps

be attributable to different stages in the history of the development

of the law by judicial decisions on the subject.

But before considering the decisions it must be emphasized

that the significance of Article 12 lies in the fact that it occurs in

Part III of the Constitution which deals with fundamental rights.

The various Articles in Part-III have placed responsibilities and

obligations on the ’State’ viz-a-vis the individual to ensure

constitutional protection of the individual’s rights against the

State, including the right to