Pradeep kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology Flashcards
When was Pradeep Kumar Biswas decided? What was the Bench Strength? Who gave the majority opinion? Who gave the dissenting opinion?
2002.
7 Judge Bench
Majority Opinion - Ruma Pal J. (for herself and 4 others)
Dissenting Opinion: (Lahoti & Raju)
What was the issue in Pradeep Kumar Biswas? Why was a 7 Judge Bench constituted?
Issue: Whether the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) is State under Art. 12 of the Constitution? The larger issue was when a non-statutory body/corporation could be considered as State under Art. 12?
A bench of 7 judges had to be constituted because the a 5 Judge Bench of the SC in Sabhajit Tewary v. Union of India (1975) had held that CSIR was not State under Art. 12.
Subsequent decisions had sought to water down the principle in Sabhajit Tewary. Several institutions similar to CSIR had been held as State.
Therefore the correctness of that decision required to be reconsidered by a larger bench.
What were the basic facts of Sabhajit Tewary v. Union of India? How was it decided?
Case filed in 1972. Decided in 1975.
In Sabhajit Tewary, a junior stenographer with CSIR filed a writ petition under Art. 32 claiming parity of remuneration with other stenographers.
Writ petition disposed off holding that CSIR was not an “authority” under Art. 12.
What were the basic facts of Pradeep Kumar Biswas?
Writ petition filed against Indian Institute of Chemical Biology (a unit of CSIR) alleging wrongful termination of services of employees.
The High Court rejected the write petition on the ground that it was not maintainable in view of Sabhajit Tewary.
Why is the placement of Art. 12 in Part III important for its expansive interpretation?
Pradeep Kumar Biswas
Part III is a guarantee of fundamental rights which have over the years been accorded expansive interpretations.
Arts. 14 and 16 have in particular been expanded from a right not to be discriminated against to a right against all forms of arbitrary or irrational State action.
The expansion of Art. 14 targets arbitrariness by “centers of power” against individuals.
Corresponding to the expansion of Art. 14, there has been an expansion of “State” to cover as many “centers of power”
What are the stages of expansion of Art .12 identified in Pradeep Kumar Biswas?
- Definition of State confined to the authorities expressly mentioned in Art. 12 and those that would be considered edjusdem generis.
- “State” came to be understood with reference to the remedies available against it.
Mandamus may be issued for enforcement of (i) statutory duties; (ii) duties of a public nature.
All constitutional or statutory authorities on whom powers are conferred by law would be State under Art. 12 [RSEB v. Mohan Lal - 5 Judges -1967]
At this stage, a company incorporated under the Companies Act was not State since (i) it was not formed statutorily; (ii) it was not subject to an statutory duty vis a vis an individual.
[Praga Tools Corporation v. C.A. Immanual - 1969]
- By 1975, the concept of “State” was found to have undergone drastic changes by Justice Matthew in Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagat Ram.
As per the majority (Ray CJ), State would include a public authority which has (i) “public or statutory duties to perform”; and (ii) “which carries those duties out for the benefit of the public and not for private profit”.
The question was whether the Corporations in question could be considered the “voice and hands” of the government.
As per Matthew J:
- State can act only through instrumentality or agency.
- who can be natural or juristic person.
- thus the State could act through a corporation and make it an agency or instrumentality of the State.
This opened the doors for even non-statutory bodies / corporations (such as companies / societies) to be brought within the ambit of “State”.
- Test of Matthew J. in Sukhdev Singh reiterated in Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. Airports Authority and the concept of State further expanded. (3 Judge bench - Bhagawati) - explanation of how the “public corporation” evolved as the third arm of the government.
-Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Muhib
Society registered under the J&K Registration of Societies Act held to be State. Affirms Ramana Dayaram Shetty and lays down 6 tests.
Rajasthan State Electricity Board v. Mohan Lal
Facts
Ratio
1967 - 5 Judges
Whether RSEB, a corporation constituted under a statute, primarily carrying out commercial activities would be “State” under Art. 12?
- “other authorities” is not to be read edjusdem generis.
- “other authorities” will include any constitutional or statutory authorities on whom powers are conferred by law.
The Act conferred powers on the RSEB to give directions, the disobedience of which is a criminal offence.
- It is not material that some of the powers conferred may be fore the purpose of carrying on commercial activities.
- State is comprehended to include bodies created for the purposes of promoting the educational or economic interests of the people.
Dissent
Constitutional or statutory authorities invested with power by law but not sharing the sovereign power do not fall under “State”.
Those authorities which are invested with sovereign power, i.e., the power to make rules or regulations and administer them to the detriment of citizens fall within the definition of State
Praga Tools Corpn v. C.A. Imanual
Facts
Ratio
1969 - 2 Judge
Whether a writ of mandamus would lie against a company incorporated against the Companies Act in relation to an agreement between the company and its workmen?
Held
- A mandamus lies to secure performance of public or statutory duty in the performance of which the one who applies has sufficient legal interest.
- A company, being a non-statutory body and one incorporated under the Companies Act having no statutory nor a public duty imposed on it by a statute, cannot be subjected to a writ of mandamus.
Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagat Ram
- Year of Decision
- Facts
- Bench Strength and Vote Split
- Final Holding
1975
5 Judges
Majority - CN Ray + 2 others
Concurring - Matthew J.
Dissent - Alagiriswami J.
Whether:
- (i) ONGC (ii) Industrial Finance Corporation; (iii) Life Insurance Corporation
- all public corporations set up by statute,
- are “other authorities” and therefore State under Art. 12?
Final Holding - All corporations are held to be authorities and “State”.
Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagat Ram
- Majority Opinion
Ray CJ + 2 ors
“authority” under Art. 12 includes public authority which:
- has public (or) stautory duties to perform
- carries out such duties for the public benefit (not) for private profit
- not precluded from making profit for public benefit.
Analyzed:
- History of formation
- Financial support by Central Govt.
- Utilization of Benefit so provided
- Nature of service rendered
On such analysis, concluded that the structure of the corporations indicated that they are the “voice + hands of the government” EVEN IF these corporations ran on the profits earned by them.
Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagat Ram
- Concurring opinion
Matthew J.
- State is an abstract entity.
- It can act only through agency / instrumentality.
- which can be a natural or juridical person
Thus, State may act through a corporation making it an agency / instrumentality.
Tests to identify whether a body is gency / instrumentality of the State
- state financial support + unusual degree of control over management and policies
- whether the operation is a public function
- The presence of state aid in combination with the performance of public function may lead to a conclusion of state agency.
If public function is so close related to a governmental function, it may be regarded as a government agency even in the absence of financial aid.
Conversely, if function is not a governmental function, mere receipt of state aid will not convert the body into an agency / instrumentality of state. - Ultimate Question:
- Is the corporation an agency / instrumentality of the Government
- carrying on business
- for public benefit?
What was the basis of the decision in Sabhajit Tewary v. Union of India? Why was it wrong?
- CSIR did not have statutory character like LIC / IFC/ONGC. It was merely a society registered under the Societies Registration Act.
- Previous decisions of the SC had held that companies under the Companies Act, such as Praga Tools Corporation / Hindustan Engg. Mazdoor Union and Hindustan Steel
- had an independent existence from the government
- cannot be regarded as a government department
- their employees do not enjoy protection of government servants under Art. 311
The approach was wrong because:
- it was contrary to the “voice and hands” approach in Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagatram
- The reliance on cases pertaining to Art. 311 was incorrect, since the definition of State under Art. 12 was wider - Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib.
