Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. IICB

Article 12 defines "State" to include the Government and Parliament of India, the Government and Legislature of every State, and all local and other authorities within India or under the control of the Government of India. The dispute was over the meaning of "other authorities", and in particular whether a society like C.S.I.R. could be the State.

The story began in 1972. Sabhajit Tewary, a junior stenographer at C.S.I.R., filed a writ in the Supreme Court under Article 32. He asked for the same salary and allowances as newly recruited stenographers and relied on equality under Article 14. In 1975 the Supreme Court dismissed his writ. It held that C.S.I.R. was not a State or authority under Article 12, so a writ against it was not maintainable, which means the court could not hear the petition at all.

Later, Pradeep Kumar Biswas challenged his termination by the Indian Institute of Chemical Biology, a unit of C.S.I.R., in the Calcutta High Court. Following Sabhajit Tewary, the High Court held that the writ was not maintainable. When the matter reached the Supreme Court, a two-judge bench said the question needed to be reconsidered. The matter was finally referred to a seven-judge Constitution Bench.

1. Was C.S.I.R. a "State" under Article 12?

2. If so, should the Supreme Court overrule its own earlier decision in Sabhajit Tewary, which had held that C.S.I.R. was not an authority under Article 12?

The majority held that C.S.I.R. is a State under Article 12.

The Court looked back at the indicators laid down in Ajay Hasia (1980). These were: whether the government held the entire share capital; whether almost all expenditure was met by government financial help; whether the State had given the body a monopoly; whether there was deep and pervasive State control; whether its functions were governmental in nature; and whether a government department had been transferred to the body. The Court said these indicators are not a rigid formula.

The majority laid down a simpler test. If a body is under the dominance or control of the government financially, functionally and administratively, it is a State under Article 12. The control must be pervasive, meaning deep and far-reaching. Merely regulatory control, of the kind the government exercises over every private body, is not enough.

Applying this test to C.S.I.R., the Court noted the following points:
- The government itself created C.S.I.R.
- Research that was earlier done within the Department of Commerce was shifted to C.S.I.R.
- Its objectives, promoting industrial development and economic welfare, were in the national interest.
- It is a non-profit body, and its income was used only for these objectives.
- Its expenditure was decided with government approval.
- It could not decide its own employees' service conditions without the approval of the Government of India.
- About seventy percent of its funds came from government grants.
- The Prime Minister is its ex officio President.
- The President nominated the non-ex officio members of the Governing Body and could end their membership.

The Court concluded that this control was pervasive and not merely regulatory. Sabhajit Tewary was overruled. The matter was sent back to an appropriate bench for a decision on the merits in light of Article 12.

The decision came on 16 April 2002 by a majority of five to two. Justice Ruma Pal wrote the majority opinion. Justice R. C. Lahoti wrote a dissent for himself and Justice Doraiswamy Raju.

Constitution of India, Article 12; Constitution of India, Article 14; Constitution of India, Article 32; Societies Registration Act

This is a landmark case on the meaning of "other authorities" in Article 12 and a turning point in understanding the definition of State. Fundamental rights are mostly enforced against the State, so this test decides whether a writ against a body is even maintainable.

Students should remember it as part of a chain of cases:
- Rajasthan State Electricity Board gave a broad meaning to "other authorities".
- Sukhdev Singh held statutory corporations to be State.
- Ajay Hasia gave the indicators.
- Pradeep Kumar Biswas gave the test of financial, functional and administrative control.
- Zee Telefilms applied the same test to B.C.C.I.

Exam line to remember: control must be deep and pervasive; merely regulatory control is not enough.

Hypothetical: Zoya works at a research society registered under the Societies Registration Act. The government created the society, provides most of its funds, must approve its budget and staff service rules, and a minister heads its governing body. When Zoya is dismissed without a hearing, she files a writ petition. Under the Pradeep Kumar Biswas test, the society is likely to be "State" under Article 12 because the government's control is financial, functional and administrative, and it is pervasive.

Now compare Farhan, who works at a private company that only follows ordinary government licensing and safety rules. That control is merely regulatory, so the company would not be State under this test.