This article is written by Kathakali Banerjee. This article provides a detailed analysis of the judgement of Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology (2002). The article further elaborates on the facts of the case, issues, arguments of the parties, and critical analysis of the case.

Introduction

“The object of the fundamental rights is two-fold. First, every citizen must be in a position to claim those rights. Secondly, they must be binding upon every authority.” – Dr. B. R. Ambedkar in the Constituent Assembly of India

One of the most important segments of the Indian Constitution is Part III, which delineates fundamental rights. With the notion in mind that basic human rights are the inherent feature of a being, the framers of the Constitution introduced the concept of fundamental rights with the view that these rights are the basic rights that are granted to all Indian citizens as well as non-citizens (Articles 12 to 35), so as to enable them to enjoy basic freedoms and rights and protect them from arbitrary actions of the state. As fundamental rights protect us from unnecessary state intrusions, it’s important for us to understand the concept of the term “state” properly. The inaugural Article to the fundamental rights, that is, Article 12 of the Indian Constitution, gives us the definition of a state, which bears the duty to protect and not to violate our basic rights. A plethora of judicial precedents have been delivered by judges interpreting “state.” As most of the fundamental rights can be enforced against the state and its various instrumentalities, it’s very important for us to understand their scope. From the 1950s itself, efforts through various judicial decisions have been made to give a proper structure and understand the scope of Article 12. The Apex Court considered the various precedents and finally reached a conclusion, removing all kinds of doubts in Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology (2002). 

In this article, we will discuss the Pradeep Kumar Biswas case (2002) and the significance that this landmark case holds in the eyes of the law. Further, we shall also understand the evolution of the concept of “state” under Article 12 of the Indian Constitution.

Details of the case

1. Name of the case: Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology
2. Citation: (2002) 5 SCC 111
3. Name of the Petitioner: Pradeep Kumar Biswas
4. Name of the Respondent: Indian Institute of Chemical Biology and Ors.
5. Date of Judgement: 16.04.2002
6. Name of the Court: The Supreme Court of India
7. Bench: S.P. Bharucha, former Chief Justice of India, Justice Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, Justice R.C. Lahoti, Justice N. Santosh Hegde, Justice Doraiswamy Raju, Justice Ruma Pal, and Justice Arijit Pasayat.
8. Laws involved: Articles 12, 14, 16, 32, 323A, 311 of the Indian Constitution, Section 14(2) of the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985, Societies Registration Act 1860.

Background of Pradeep Kumar Biswas vs. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology (2002)

Before the Pradeep Kumar Biswas case, the Apex Court ruled that the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) could not be classified as a “State” in Sabhajit Tewary v. Union of India and Ors. (1975). In the year 1972, Sabhajit Tewary, who was a junior stenographer appointed under the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), filed a writ petition to the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, claiming parity of remuneration with a newly appointed stenographer in the said institute. He claimed his right to equality under Articles 14 and 16 of the Indian Constitution. The petitioner claimed that the body, CSIR, registered under the Societies Registration Act, would work as an agency of the government, executing sovereign functions. However, a bench of 5 judges rejected the writ petition. It was stated that the features of the body were not sufficient for categorising it under ‘other authorities’ of Article 12. The Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable as CSIR doesn’t fall within the scope of the ‘state’ under Article 12. 

Facts of Pradeep Kumar Biswas vs. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology (2002)

Mr. Pradeep Kumar Biswas and a few other’s services were terminated by the Indian Institute of Chemical Biology, which is a unit under the CSIR, a government agency under the control and functioning of the central government. A writ petition was filed by them challenging the termination of their services by CSIR, the parent organisation, in the Calcutta High Court before a single bench. The learned bench dismissed the petition based on the precedent set in Sabhajit Tewary v. Union of India. Aggrieved by the decision of the Calcutta High Court, a Special Leave Petition was filed by the petitioners before the Supreme Court on 5th August 1986. The matter was initially presented before a division bench, which was subsequently referred to a larger seven-member constitutional bench to review and reconsider the Sabhajit Tiwary case. 

Issues raised

• Whether CSIR should be considered a state under the ambit of Article 12 based on the functions it carries out?
• Whether it would be appropriate to overturn the decision given in the Sabhajit Tewary Case (1967), which has served as a prominent precedent for over a quarter of a century?

Arguments of the parties

Contentions raised by the Petitioner

• The Petitioner contended that, from reading the Memorandum of Association (MoA), CSIR should be considered a state under Article 12, as it was established for national interest purposes and aimed to foster industrial growth in India. They argued that CSIR performs a sovereign function, which warrants its recognition as a state. 
• The petitioners contended that the notification dated 31.10.1986, bringing CSIR within the purview of Section 14(2) of the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985, concluded the fact that CSIR was a state within the meaning of Article 12. Strong reliance was placed on the fact that no notification under the said section of the Act could have been issued by the central government unless the employees of the institute were either appointed to public services and posts in connection with the maintenance of the affairs of the Union or the State or any local or other authority in the territory and were under the control of the government.

Contentions raised by the Respondents

• The respondents contended that the majority of the members of the governing body were non-governmental members. The president of the body has the power to nominate as well as terminate the membership of the ex-officio members. Even being the ex-officio President of the society, who in actual is the Prime Minister of India, the power was being exercised by him as the President of the society only.
• In response to the contention raised by the petitioners, the respondent argued that the notification dated 31.10.1986, issued, was not conclusive of the fact that CSIR can be classified as a state within the meaning of Article 12. It is open to the government to issue a notification even if an entity is not a state to ensure the benefits of the provisions of the Administrative Tribunals Act for its employees.

Judgement in Pradeep Kumar Biswas vs. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology (2002)

The judgement delivered in this case preferred structuralism and was delivered in a 5:2 ratio, overturning the previous ruling by a 5-judge bench in the Subhajit Tewary case. The judges established that CSIR falls within the ambit of “other authorities” as defined under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Tests like the formation of the body, object and function of the body, management and control of the body, and the financial aid provided to it were laid down by the Apex Court to assess the nature of the activities performed by the body, which would cause them to be classified under “state”. 

Justice SP Barucha (then CJI), Justice Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, Justice N Santosh Hegde, Justice Ruma Pal, and Justice Arijit Pasayat delivered the majority decision and opined that CSIR falls under the ambit of “state” under Article 12 of the Constitution. They laid down the following reasons to support their opinion:

Relationship between Article 12 and fundamental rights

Being the inaugural Article of Part III of the Indian Constitution, Article 12 holds a significant position as it defines the entities against whom fundamental rights can be enforced. The Articles mentioned under Part III, which deals with fundamental rights, are granted to each and every individual, and so it creates an obligation on the “state” to protect them. Through a process of judicial interpretation, the scope of Article 14, which talks about equality, and Article 16, which talks about equality in matters of employment, has widened. This right not only ensures the right to be not discriminated against but also protects against arbitrary or irrational state actions. Therefore, the Apex Court, to keep pace with the widening capacity of equality rights, had to increase the scope for the interpretation of “state” under Article 12, so as to ensure the protection of individuals against the arbitrary exercise of power by the entities who have the power.

Society registered under Societies Registration Act is a “state”

The Supreme Court relied on the case of Sukhdev Singh and Ors. v. Bhagatram Sardar Singh Raghuvanshi and Anr (1975), where it was ruled that public authorities performing public functions are included under the concept of state. In this case, Justice Mathew, while giving his concurring judgement, propounded six indices:

1. A usual degree of control in the management or finding of state financial support over the body can categorise an operation as state action.
2. Having a significant combination of state aid and rendering an important public service can categorise a body as an agency of the state.
3. The public function performed, regardless of its operation, is significant.
4. Whether the corporation formulated carries out its business for the benefit of the public or not.
5. Whether the corporation enjoys monopoly status that is state-protected
6. If a department of the government gets transferred to a corporation, then the corporation will be considered as an instrumentality or agency of the state.

The tests laid down in the Sukhdev case were further elaborated in the case of Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. The International Airport Authority of India and Ors. (1979). These tests were further reformulated and given in the judgement of Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib and Ors. (1980). 

The rationale behind delivering the judgements in Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagatram Singh and Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. The International Airport Authority of India formed the “ratio decidendi” in the Ajay Hasia case. The case was heard by a 5 judge constitutional bench. While delivering its verdict, it was stated that if an entity is functionally, structurally, and financially acting as an agency or instrumentality of the state, it can be classified under “other authorities” as per Article 12 of the Constitution. The functional test focused on the factor of how the entity is operated, as to whether its function is predominantly influenced by the government. The structural test looked at the composition of the body so as to scrutinise whether it has government-dominated appointees. Lastly, the financial test looked at the financial contribution made by the government to the body. With the advancement of society, which leads to the multiplication of governmental tasks with the advent of a welfare state, there is a need to upgrade the framework of the civil service. A new administrative device in the form of a public corporation came into being as another arm of the government. So ultimately, it does not matter in what form the “state” is disguised to perform its public functions. So nothing would take away a corporation’s character as a “state,” which is incorporated under a law.  

The tests formulated in the case of Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib are flexible, and the body claiming to be a state should be financially, administratively, and functionally dominated or controlled by the government. The control should be found to be pervasive and not a mere regulatory control by the government. The establishment of mere regulatory control would not serve the body as a state under Article 12. 

The obiter dicta announced in Sabhajit Tiwary’s case stated that the employees of bodies that are not statutory and are registered under the Companies Act 1956 or the Societies Registration Act 1860 could not enjoy the rights of government employees under Article 311 of the Constitution, which has been overturned in this case. The court, while delivering its judgement, held that CSIR was set up to promote educational and economic public interests; it is governed by the body, which is controlled by the government, as well as its members, which are controlled by the government. Based on the above observations, the court in Pradeep Kumar Biswas overturned the ruling of Sabhajit Tewary, stating that even if a corporation is established under any law like the Companies Act or the Societies Registration Act, it would be considered a state under Article 12. In the case a corporation acts as the agency or instrumentality of the state, it will be automatically considered a “state,” and fundamental rights can also be enforced against them.

Deep and pervasive state control

The tests formulated in Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. The International Airport Authority of India and Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagatram had “deep and pervasive control by the state” as one of the indicators to categorise a corporation or a society as a state agency or instrumentality. The presence of deep and pervasive government control over CSIR has been another important factor in recognising CSIR as an instrumentality of the state. The dominant role of the Government of India in the governing body of CSIR showed deep governmental influence. All the members present except the ex-officio members are nominated by the President of India, and the Prime Minister is the ex-officio President there. The power to terminate the office of any member also resides in the hands of the president. Even the governing body’s power to make or amend the rules of CSIR required the sanction of the Government of India. Financial assistance, the control of the government in the organisation’s expenditures, and the presence of grants given by the government were two of the crucial factors that established positive ties between CSIR and the government. Being a pioneer of India’s Intellectual Property Movement and covering a wide spectrum of technology as well as science, the functions of CSIR are of great public importance. Since the activities carried out are fundamental to the lives of individuals, they are considered to be intimately associated with governmental functions.

Formation of CSIR by the Central Government

Two bodies, the Board of Scientific and Industrial Research and the Industrial Research Utilisation Committee, were set up by the Department of Commerce, Government of India, on 27th April 1940, and 1st February 1941, respectively, with the objective of industrial growth in India. For proper coordination and exercise of administrative control over these two bodies, CSIR was formed under the Registration of Societies Act and duly registered on 12th March 1942. This shows that the body was created by the government itself to perform functions that were performed by the Department of Commerce of the Central Government. 

Management and control

The presence of the government in the management and control of CSIR is ubiquitous. As per Rule 43 of the Rules and Regulations of CSIR, the governing body shall exercise all the powers of society, but it is subjected to the restrictions provided by the government. The judges highlighted that “given the fact that the President of CSIR is the Prime Minister, under this Rule, the subjugation of the Governing Body to the will of the Central Government is complete.” Rule 41 empowers the President to amend and regulate any of the decisions passed by the Governing Body, and his order is considered binding on the body. This shows the presence of “deep and pervasive control” by the government in the body.

Financial aid

70 percent of the funding for CSIR was provided by the central government. Besides that, contributions are also made by the state government, institutions, and other agencies. Even the budget and the expenditure of the society are drafted by the governing body of the society as per the instructions issued by the Government of India. The members of CSIR have no power to present their opinions with respect to the distribution of its assets in the event of its winding up. In this matter, the government also has a dominant role to play. Even though the assets are nominally owned by society, they are subjected to ultimate analysis by the government. The non-governmental contribution is much less or nothing as compared to the governmental contribution in the body. This shows the presence of deep and pervasive control over the body by the government. 

Considering the above observations, the Apex Court overturned the precedent set in Sabhajit Tewary’s case. Further, the Apex Court quoted:

“Normally, a precedent like Sabhajit Tewary, which has stood for a length of time, should not be reversed, however erroneous the reasoning, if it has stood unquestioned without its reasoning being “distinguished” out of all recognition by subsequent decisions, and if the principles enunciated in the earlier decision can stand consistently and be reconciled with subsequent decisions of this Court, some equally authoritative. In our view, Sabhajit Tewary fulfils both conditions.”

Dissenting opinion in the case of Pradeep Kumar Biswas vs. India Institute of Chemical Biology (2002)

Justice RC Lahoti and Justice Doraiswamy Raju opined that Sabhajit Tewary’s ruling was correctly decided and CSIR is not a state under Article 12. They pointed out that even though there was some control by the government to be classified as a state, CSIR lacked deep and pervasive influence by the government. They quoted

“For our purpose, it would suffice to say that Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, and Article 323A of the Constitution, to which the Act owes its origin, do not apparently contemplate a society being brought within the ambit of the Act by a notification of the Central Government. Though we guardedly abstain from expressing any opinion on this issue, the present one cannot be an occasion for entering into that exercise. Moreover, on the material available, we have recorded a positive finding that CSIR is not a society “owned or controlled by the government”. We cannot ignore that finding solely by relying on the contents of the notification, wherein we find the user of the relevant expression having been mechanically copied but factually unsupportable.”  

They asserted that CSIR cannot be regarded as a body falling within the category of a state based on the fact that it does not hold any statutory origin, nor is there any statute that confers it with powers. Simply holding a legal entity as the instrumentality or agency of the state does not automatically classify it as an “other authority” under Article 12. CSIR lacked the statutory flavour conferred either by the Constitution or any statute and its potential to act to the detriment of the fundamental rights of the people. The judges expressed dissatisfaction, as according to them, enough proof was not produced before the court to establish the presence of “deep and pervasive control by the government” to be classified as a state under Article 12.  

CSIR is not “state”

Examining the characteristics of CSIR, the judges contended that it lacks the “statutory flavour” to be classified as a state under Article 12. The reasoning can be discussed as follows:

• The first reasoning they provided is that the government is not the owner of the complete share capital of the body. It is only one of the five categories of avenues the body uses to derive its funds.
• Secondly, the governing body is not entirely composed of nominees presented by the government and contains private individuals. 
• Thirdly, the functions rendered by the body are not essentially fundamental to the lives of people, and the functions entrusted to CSIR can also be carried out by any private organisation. 
• Fourthly, it was pointed out that the body was not a department of the government but a society set up under the Societies Registration Act to coordinate and administer the functions of the Board of Scientific and Industrial Research and the Industrial Research Utilisation Committee. 
• Fifthly, membership-related issues are solved by the Prime Minister (the President of the society) and not by the Government of India. Furthermore, the governing body is headed by the Director General of CSIR and not the President. There is governmental interference while regulating the expenditure of the body, as financial assistance is also granted by the government. 
• Sixthly, the judges stated that the provisions of the Memorandum of Association (MoA) of CSIR are general and applicable to all societies.
• Seventhly, with respect to the notification dated 31.10.1986, it was issued by the Ministry of Personal, Public Grievances, and Pensions, as pointed out by the Attorney General. 

They concluded that Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985 and Article 323A of the Indian Constitution, to which the Act owes its origin, “do not apparently contemplate a society being brought within the ambit of the Act by a notification of the Central Government.” Therefore, Justice RC Lahoti and Justice Doraiswamy Raju opined that there is a governmental presence, but not so deep to categorise it as a “state” under Article 12. 

Critical analysis of Pradeep Kumar Biswas vs. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology (2002)

This case has been pivotal in shaping the interpretation of Article 12. Some of the key legal aspects outlined in this case are as follows:

Interpretation of Article 12 of the Indian Constitution.

This case has delved into the interpretation of Article 12, particularly concerning the inclusion of other authorities, especially public sector undertakings, within its ambit. Factors like object, function, control, and management by the government were explored in this case. By providing clarity on the criteria for categorising entities as “states” under Article 12, it has set an important precedent for interpreting public entities’ status.

Analysis of pervasive governmental control.

A significant aspect examined in the Pradeep Kumar Biswas case was the extent of governmental control exerted over entities like CSIR. It established that factors such as financial, administrative, and functional control by the government are essential considerations for an entity to be deemed a “state” under Article 12. This judgement played a pivotal role in developing the test of deep and pervasive state control, thereby expanding the scope of entities considered as “state” under Article 12 of the Constitution. 

Judicial Scrutinization of Public Enterprises

In the context of globalisation, the case highlighted the need for evolving interpretations of Article 12 with respect to public entities. It highlighted the need for continuous judicial scrutiny to ensure that such entities adhere to constitutional principles and protect the rights of individuals. By emphasising the evolving nature of constitutional interpretation, the case emphasised the judiciary’s role in adapting to contemporary socio-economic realities.

A seven-judge bench set out an important precedent for interpreting “other authorities” under Article 12, especially in the field of Public Sector Undertakings (PSUs). This decision has far-reaching implications for PSUs that are set up by privatisation policies. It has been clearly set out that entities like CSIR, which are administratively, functionally, and financially controlled and dominated by the government, will be considered within the definition of a state under Article 12 of the Indian Constitution. 

The reasoning behind the delivery of this judgement can also be criticised on certain specific grounds. The court’s reliance on “the deep and pervasive control of the state” is overly formalistic in nature. The deep and pervasive control test laid down by the court in a few circumstances ignores the evolving nature of governance and the increasing involvement of non-governmental bodies that are devoted towards performing public functions. In an era where the line dividing the public and private sectors is quite blurred, the reasoning provided would have detrimental consequences for the protection of civil liberties, as the reasoning provided in this present judgement may limit the ability of individuals to take the step to challenge the arbitrary actions of various public authorities. 

State under Article 12 of the Indian Constitution

Article 12 is the inaugural Article of Part III, which defines bodies that can be classified as “state”. As per Article 12 of the Constitution of India, the term ‘state’ includes:

• The Government and Parliament of India;
• The government and the legislatures of each state;
• Local authorities situated within the territory of India
• Other authorities, whether situated within the territory of India or controlled by the Government of India and situated in any other place outside India.

It can be concluded that the term state includes both the executive and legislative organs of the union and states. Any authority exercising sovereign or governmental functions can be categorised as a state. 

Judicial interpretation of local authorities

Local authority is defined under Section 3(31) of the General Clauses Act, 1897. As per the definition, it includes a municipal committee, the body of Port Commissioners, and other local self-governing bodies like municipalities, district boards, improvement trusts, mining settlement boards, etc. The Apex Court, in its landmark judgement Union of India v. R.C. Jain (1981), laid down certain tests that would help us determine if a body falls within the category of local authority. The court ruled that if a body possessed a separate legal existence, functions in a specifically defined area, enjoys self-rule, and is entrusted by statute with functions that are generally entrusted to the municipalities, then such bodies would come under “local authorities” and would be considered states under Article 12 of the Indian Constitution. 

Judicial Interpretation of “Other Authorities”

As per Webster’s Dictionary, authorities are those bodies exercising the power to command. We can properly interpret the term local authorities from the various statutory provisions, but the term “other authorities” has not been defined properly, leaving it open for interpretation by the judiciary. The “other authorities” have been kept open-ended so that the definition of “state” is inclusive and encompasses a broad range of entities that operate under the supervision of the Indian Government. This term is highly ambiguous and has been interpreted differently in different cases. A few important cases that have been regarded as landmarks in the interpretation of the term are discussed below.

The term “other authority” was interpreted for the first time in the case of the University of Madras v. Shantabai (1953). In this case, the Madras High Court directed to apply the principle of ejusdem generis while interpreting this term. Ejusdem generis means “of the same kind,” which implies that any authority to be considered under ‘other authorities’ must execute governmental or sovereign functions. Therefore, authorities of the same nature as governmental bodies will be considered states under Article 12. In this case, it was established that for an authority to be considered as a state, sovereign function should be an inherent feature.

However, the interpretation provided in the University of Madras v. Shantabai case faced challenges in the case of Ujjam Bai v. State of UP (1962). Here, the application of ejusdem generis was rejected, as it was deemed to overly restrict the interpretation of other authorities. The absence of a common thread among the other elements of the state mentioned under Article 12 rendered the approach of ejusdem generis inappropriate.

A new method for interpreting other authorities was formulated in the case of Rajasthan Electricity Board v. Mohanlal (1967). The Supreme Court established that bodies created by law or under the Constitution would have enough powers to affect fundamental rights. Such bodies would be considered as a ‘state’ within the scope of Article 12. Furthermore, the Court clarified that the bodies that are invested with the power to make rules and regulations but do not share the sovereign power of the state will not be included under “state” within the meaning of Article 12. Performing governmental or sovereign functions is not an inherent quality that comes under the scope of other authorities. This decision thus broadened the scope of other authorities, encompassing entities beyond those traditionally associated with sovereign functions, such as universities.

The case of Sukhdev v. Bhagatram (1975) addressed the question of whether bodies established under statutes but primarily engaged in commercial functions would be considered a state. The Supreme Court laid down that bodies like the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation (ONGC) and the Life Insurance Corporation (LIC), established under special statutes, would indeed be considered as a state under Article 12. This decision followed the guidelines laid down in the Rajasthan Electricity Board case. 

In R.D. Shetty v. International Airport Authority (1979), a landmark judgement on Article 12 was delivered by Justice P.N. Bhagwati. In this case, the Airport Authority was held to be a state. The Court established that a degree of governmental control over the body or significant financial assistance from the government would qualify even a private entity as an instrumentality or agency of the state. This case introduced the functionality versus instrumentality test, highlighting the importance of governmental control or financial backing in determining an entity’s classification as a state. 

In Som Prakash v. Union of India and Anr. (1981), it was held that Bharat Petroleum is an instrumentality of the state. This constitutional judgement by the Apex Court considered that corporations owned by the Indian government were subject to Article 12 of the Constitution. The Court clarified that Article 12, read with Article 298, which deals with the government’s authority to carry on trade, clearly encompasses registered societies, statutory corporations, government entities, and other similar entities created for promoting economic activities. 

In Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehra Vardi (1980), another important case for the interpretation of other authorities,  Justice PN Bhagwati declared that a society registered under the Society Registration Act, 1860, qualified as a state. This case further developed and elaborated on the instrumentality test established in previous cases. It was held that if anybody fulfils either of the criteria mentioned below, it will be regarded as a state under Article 12 of the constitution:

1. If the said body is totally funded by the state,
2. If the said body is partially funded, with major funding coming from the state, or
3. If the said body is not funded by the state but the state has granted autonomy to the concerned body,
4. If there is absolute administrative control over the body by the state.

Zee Telefilms Ltd. v. Union of India (2005) considered the key factors laid down in the Pradeep Kumar Biswas case while addressing whether the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) falls within the category of the state under Article 12. This case provided a wider interpretation of the term, emphasising BCCI’s financial independence, absence of governmental shareholding, and dominance as key factors and held that BCCI cannot be considered as a state under Article 12 of the Constitution.

In SS Rana v. Registrar Corp. Societies (2006), the issue arose as to whether cooperative societies fall within the meaning of other authorities. The Apex Court held that mere control of the affairs of the society by the registrar does not automatically make the society “state” unless the other factors enumerated in Pradeep Kumar Biswas and other previous cases are fulfilled. This decision highlighted the importance of factors beyond mere governmental control.

Conclusion 

The Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology (2002) case, while overturning Subhajit Tewary’s precedent, notably overturned an erroneous judgement. The objective with which CSIR was formed can be understood by reading its resolution. In its resolution, CSIR detailed functions like promotion, guidance, and coordination of scientific and industrial research, among others. From this, it can be manifested that CSIR was formed in the national interest.

A retrospective analysis from Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagatram Sardar Singh Raghuvanshi (1975), Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi (1981), and Mysore Paper Mills Ltd. v. Mysore Paper Mills Officers’ Association (2002) suggests that entities that are financially, functionally, and administratively controlled and dominated by the government constitute a state, and not any mere regulatory body would suffice. This decision has been set up as an important precedent in the field of recognising whether public entities fall within the ambit of the state or not. It’s an accepted fact that the interpretation of Article 12 has undergone drastic changes over the years.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

What is the scope of Article 12?

Understanding the scope of Article 12 is important, as it helps us to determine to whom fundamental rights apply. The key components of the scope of Article 12 include, mainly:

1. Government: This includes the Government and Parliament of India, the state governments, and their respective legislatures.
2. Local and Other Authorities: This includes entities other than the central or state governments that are situated within the territory of India. 

Over the years, the interpretation of the term ‘state’ under Article 12 has expanded. Among the four distinct instrumentalities, the term ‘other authorities’ is the most open and widely interpreted term in Article 12. From the discussion of various judgements above, we can conclude that bodies included in ‘other authorities’ must possess certain essential factors. Governmental control, functioning public services, and financial ties with the government are the essentials to be considered as a state under Article 12. 

What’s the significance of the case with respect to Article 12 of the Indian Constitution?

The case Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology (2002) holds immense significance in the interpretation and application of Article 12 of the Indian Constitution. The fundamental rights mentioned under Part III of the Constitution guarantee individuals the right to be protected against arbitrary state actions. Now, that’s why defining “state” actions is very important, and the definition given under Article 12 is also very crucial. The reasoning provided by the court in this case had far-reaching implications for the scope and applicability of this constitutional provision. The court analysed the concept of “instrumentality or agency of the state,” which was outlined in the previous judicial precedents. It further added certain conditions for the determination, like the degree of governmental control over the body, its funding sources, and the nature of functions performed by it. The case expanded the scope of Article 12 from traditional governmental agencies to include a wide range of entities that execute public functions.

References

• Oxford Handbook of the Indian Constitution-Edited by Sujit Chowdhary, Madhav Khosla and Pratap Bhanu Mehta,2016
• MP Jain, Indian Constitutional Law, 8th Edition,2019
• VD Mahajan’s, Constitutional Law of India, 8th Edition,2023
• Dr J.N Pandey’s Constitutional Law of India, 58th Edition,2021
• https://constitution.org/1-Constitution/cmt/cardozo/jud_proc.htm
• https://www.barandbench.com/columns/justice-kk-mathew-unsung-hero-article-12-jurisprudence