Introduction

The case of Roychan Abraham v. State of U.P. And Others adjudicated by the Allahabad High Court on February 26, 2019, delves into the intricate relationship between private educational institutions and their accountability under constitutional provisions. The crux of the matter revolves around whether a private educational body, performing public duties, falls under the jurisdiction of the High Court for judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This case emerged in the wake of the Supreme Court's landmark judgment in Ramesh Ahluwalia v. State of Punjab, which expanded the scope of entities amenable to judicial review.

Summary of the Judgment

In this case, Suneet Kumar, J. referred a matter to the Larger Bench of the Allahabad High Court after the Supreme Court's decision in the Ramesh Ahluwalia case suggested that private entities performing public duties are subject to High Court jurisdiction under Article 226. The petitioner, an assistant teacher at Saint Francis School—a private Christian Minority Institution affiliated with the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE)—challenged his termination, alleging arbitrariness and violation of service conditions.

The High Court scrutinized whether private educational institutions performing public functions are subject to judicial review and whether previous judgments in M.K. Gandhi v. Director of Education and Anjani Kumar Srivastava v. State of U.P. should be revisited in light of the Ramesh Ahluwalia decision. Ultimately, the court held that private educational institutions imparting education, a public duty, are amenable to judicial review under Article 226, thereby affirming the expansive interpretation of entities subject to constitutional scrutiny.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively references several pivotal cases that have shaped the understanding of what constitutes the 'State' under Article 12 and the scope of judicial review under Article 226:

• Ramesh Ahluwalia v. State of Punjab: Established that private bodies performing public functions are subject to High Court jurisdiction under Article 226.
• M.K. Gandhi v. Director of Education (M.K. Gandhi case): Held that Delhi Public School was not the 'State' but its affiliating body, CBSE, was within Article 12's purview.
• Anjani Kumar Srivastava v. State of U.P. (Anjani Kumar Srivastava case): Reinforced the notion that private contracts between teachers and schools do not fall under Article 226 unless public duty is involved.
• Unni Krishnan, J.P. v. State of Andhra Pradesh: Expanded the definition of 'State' to include various authorities performing public functions.
• Zee Telefilms Ltd. v. Union of India: Clarified that even if a private body like BCCI is not a 'State,' performing public functions subjects it to Article 226.

Legal Reasoning

The court meticulously dissected the constitutional provisions and previous judgments to arrive at its conclusion. Central to the reasoning was the interpretation of what constitutes the 'State' under Article 12 and the breadth of Article 226's writ jurisdiction:

• Definition of 'State' (Article 12): Expansively interpreted to include not just governmental bodies but also any authority performing public functions, regardless of their statutory or non-statutory nature.
• Public Duty/Public Function: Emphasized that performing public duties, even by private entities, subjects them to judicial oversight. The nature of the duty, rather than the entity's private status, is determinative.
• Article 226 vs. Article 32: Highlighted the wider scope of Article 226, which allows High Courts to review not only 'State' actions but also actions by any authority performing public functions.
• Positive Obligation: The presence of a positive obligation on the private institution to act in a certain manner invokes the scope of judicial review.

Applying these principles, the court concluded that Saint Francis School, by virtue of imparting education—a public duty—falls within the ambit of entities subject to Article 226. The termination of the teacher's services, therefore, could be subjected to judicial scrutiny to ensure fairness and adherence to service conditions.

Impact

This judgment significantly broadens the landscape of judicial oversight, especially concerning private entities performing functions traditionally associated with the state. Key impacts include:

• Enhanced Accountability: Private educational institutions are now more accountable to constitutional norms, ensuring that their administrative actions are subject to fairness and legality.
• Precedential Strength: Reinforces and builds upon the Ramesh Ahluwalia verdict, providing concrete guidance for future cases involving private bodies performing public duties.
• Policy Formulation: Encourages the formulation of clear policies and guidelines for private institutions to align their operations with public duty requirements, thereby mitigating arbitrary administrative actions.
• Judicial Activism: Empowers the judiciary to play a proactive role in safeguarding individual rights against both state and private actors performing public functions.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Article 226 of the Constitution of India

Article 226 empowers High Courts to issue writs for the enforcement of not only fundamental rights but also for any other purpose. This includes actions against any 'person or authority,' thereby extending judicial oversight beyond just the government bodies.

'State' as Defined under Article 12

The term 'State' isn't limited to the government itself but includes any instrumentality, authority, or body performing public functions. This broad interpretation ensures that even private entities with public obligations are subject to constitutional scrutiny.

Public Duty/Public Function

Engaging in public duties refers to performing functions that benefit the public or a section of it, similar to those performed by governmental bodies. The nature of the duty, rather than the entity's private status, determines whether it falls under public law obligations.

Conclusion

The judgment in Roychan Abraham v. State of U.P. And Others marks a pivotal advancement in the realm of judicial review concerning private entities undertaking public duties. By affirming that private educational institutions responsible for imparting education are amenable to High Court scrutiny under Article 226, the court bridges the gap between private autonomy and public accountability. This ensures that the fundamental rights of individuals are safeguarded irrespective of whether the transgressions are by state or privately managed institutions. The decision reinforces the judiciary's role in maintaining a balanced interplay between state responsibilities and private sector functions, thereby upholding the constitutional ethos of justice and fairness.