Introduction

• This case became one of the landmark judgments in the constitutional law and history of India, especially concerning the ambiguity in Article 12 of the constitution.
• This case overrules the judgment of the Sabhajit Tewary v. Union of India (1975).
• This case observed the detailed analysis of various administrative, financial and functional aspects of CSIR; the majority opinion held that CSIR is within the meaning of “State”.

Facts

• The case on which the present petition was based was Sabhajit Tewary case.
  • Sabhajit Tewary, a Junior Stenographer working for the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution claiming uniformity in the remunerations of the Stenographers newly recruited to the CSIR in 1972.
  • His claim was denied by a bench of five Judges as it was held that the CSIR was not an "authority" within Article 12 of the Constitution, owing to which a writ application was not maintainable.
• Appellants in this case filed a writ petition in the Calcutta High Court challenging the termination of their services by the Indian Institute of Chemical and Biology (a unit of CSIR) (Respondent 1) based on the similar contentions that were raised in the Sabhajit Tewary Case.
• An appeal, by way of special leave, was filed in the Supreme Court challenging the decision of the High Court.
• A two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court referred the matter to a Constitutional-Bench of 7 Judges being of the view that the aforementioned Sabhajit Tewary case required reconsideration in view of subsequent decisions of the Supreme Court in respect of several other institutes of similar nature set up by the Union of India.

Issues involved

• Whether CSIR falls under the ambit of Article 12 of the Indian constitution, within the meaning of “State”?
• Whether this larger bench overrule the Sabhajit Tewary case, previously and very recently pronounced by the same court?

Observations

• The Court observed that CSIR was financially, functionally and administratively dominated by the Government and such control was deep and pervasive.
• CSIR was ‘created’ by the Government to carry on in an organized manner what was being done earlier by the Department of Commerce of the Central Government.
• CSIR was set up in the national interest to further the economic welfare of society by fostering planned industrial development in the country.
• It was observed that the governing body also has the power to frame, amend or appeal or repeal the byelaws of CSIR but only with the sanction of the Government of India.
• The then financial position of CSIR was that at least 70% of the funds of CSIR were available from grants made by the Government of India.
• The court observed that “the assets and funds of CSIR though nominally owned by the Society are in the ultimate analysis owned by the Government.”
• Therefore, writ petition was maintainable against the concerned body in this case – Indian Institute of Chemical Biology- which was a unit of CSIR.

Conclusion

• Since the decision was given by a larger 7-Judge bench of the Supreme Court, the precedent in the erroneous findings of the Sabhajit Tewary case could be overruled.
• The court considered CSIR to be within the ambit of “other authorities” under Article 12 and hence a “state” against whom writ can be issued.

Notes

Article 12 of Constitution deals with meaning of State provided unless the context otherwise requires, the State includes 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.

Article 32 of Constitution deals with the Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part III; The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed ;The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this Part.