This case summary is writeen by Rozy Parveen during her internship with LeDroit .
DATE OF THE CASE: 13 November 1980
PETITONER: Ajay Hasia etc.
RESPONDENT: Khalid Mujib Sehravardi and Ors etc
BENCH/ JUDGES: P.N. Bhagwati, Y.V. Chandrachud, V.R. Krishnaiyer, Syed Murtaza Fazalali, A.D. Koshal
CITATION: 1981 AIR 487; 1981 SCR (2) 79
IMPORTANT ARTICLES/ SECTIONS: Article 12, 14
BACKGROUND
Regarding politics, the term “State” is defined in Article 12 of the Indian Constitution to refer to all local or other authorities located inside India’s territory or under the jurisdiction of the Indian government, as well as the union and state governments, the Parliament, and state legislatures. Over time, this concept has grown to include organizations like LIC and ONGC as well as those with constitutionally established legislative authority, such the President of India and Governors. For an entity to be considered a state, the government must have substantial financial, functional, administrative, and pervasive control over it; just regulatory authority is insufficient. Article 12 of the Constitution has been construed by the judiciary in numerous contexts, with reference to Article 14 and Article 32 of the document. Various tests to ascertain whether a body is covered by Article 12 have been established by landmark instances. One of the most important factors in establishing the culpability of such bodies as a state is Article 12, which has led the courts to use a variety of criteria to evaluate the status and liability of the body in question.
FACT OF THE CASE
In accordance with the Jammu and Kashmir Registration of Societies Act, 1898, the Regional Engineering College, Srinagar, one of the fifteen engineering institutions nationwide supported by the Indian government, functions as a society. The college’s admissions process, which comprised a written exam and a viva test, was challenged in this case by the petitioner. There were no inquiries about the topic matter during the petitioner’s brief two- or three-minute viva, which was limited to technicalities like residence and parentage. The petitioner received high marks in the qualifying exam, but poor marks in the viva test prevented them from being admitted. Conversely, individuals who received much lower qualifying exam scores were admitted. prior to the petitioner. As a result, the petitioner challenged the legitimacy of the admissions on a number of grounds, including the infringement of their right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution, and filed a writ suit against the institution pursuant to Article 32 of the Constitution[2].
ISSUED RAISED
- Whether the Article 12 of the Constitution apply to the college that is being contested?
- Whether the aforementioned entrance requirements contravene Article 14 of the Constitution?
CONTENSIONS
Petitioner’s contentions
Clause 3 of the Memorandum of Association states in subclause V that the State and Central Governments are expected to fund the college, and subclause VI of the same clause mandates that the Society invest its funds or deposit them in banks that have been approved by the State Government or deposit its funds in a way that the Society determines is best. According to Clause 6 of the Memorandum of Association, the State and Central Governments may designate persons to examine the society’s operations and advancement, carry out investigations into its matters, and report back on their conclusions. Furthermore, Clause 7 states that the State Government may take up management and control, subject to Central Government approval, if the college and society are unable to function properly. concerning the college’s resources. Furthermore, in accordance with Clause 9’s subclause (2), the Central and State Governments may, at any time, mutually discuss to establish new members of the society. Consequently, it can be said that the college is covered by Article 12 of the Constitution.
Respondent’s contentions
In contrast to being a corporation constituted by statute, the respondent contended that the college is run by a society founded under the Jammu and Kashmir Societies Act, 1898. As a result, by the definition of Article 12 of the Constitution, it is not regarded as an authority. Thus, the Respondent argued, neither a writ suit nor an allegation of acting arbitrarily in admissions or in violation of the equality section of the constitution could be made against it.
COURT’S ANALYSIS AND DECISION
The petitioners showed us a chart that compared their written test and viva voce exam scores to those of some successful candidates. This data unequivocally shows that, despite having substantially lower scores in the written test and qualifying exams, the successful candidates were only able to outperform the Petitioners because of their remarkably high viva voce examination scores. The Petitioners, who felt wronged by the selection process, brought the current writ suit, contesting the college admissions’ legitimacy on several grounds. Some of these arguments were dropped from our consideration because they were covered in a previous ruling by this court in Miss Nishi Maghu v. State of Jammu and Kashmir & Ors[3]. It is necessary to take into account whether an entity is covered by “other authorities” before deciding how Article 12 should be applied. In the beginning, when the government’s powers were restricted, it could function well thanks to the natural people who made up its civil service. But as government duties increased and the welfare state was established, it became clear that the civil services structure was unable to manage the new, specialised, and technological responsibilities that called for swift decision-making and flexibility. The government is always there, even if a corporation is a separate legal entity with its own corporate structure, follows business principles, and needs autonomy to be managed effectively. Essentially, a corporation serves on behalf of the government, therefore the corporate veil should not hide this truth. If a corporation is owned, controlled, and run by the government, then it is effectively an agency or surrogate of the government and cannot escape constitutional constraints by pretending to be something else. Under Article 12, it must be acknowledged as an “authority,” and as such, it must protect fundamental rights in the same way that the government does. All six test conditions were met by the Government of Kashmir, which also took complete control over the college’s operations and turned the society into an official government entity. The Honorable Bench as a result denied the petition.
[1] 1981 SCR (2) 79.
[2] Niyati Acharya, “Ajay Hasia etc. Vs. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi & ors. etc.”(lawtimesjournal.in, 12 march,2019) < https://lawtimesjournal.in/ajay-hasia-etc-vs-khalid-mujib-sehravardi-ors-etc/ > accessed on 2 May 2024.
[3] 1980 (4) SCC 95.
