Title: Prakash Singh V. Union of India & Anr.
The Delhi High Court has noted that the writ of mandamus' scope is against private authorities who may be carrying out public duties with a focus on the execution of such public duties, not against private wrongs for which it is not a remedy.
A division bench composed of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad further added that the Court could not intervene in a writ of mandamus regarding the internal operations of a private entity. They made the following observations:
"It is well settled that a writ of mandamus lies only for the purpose of public or statutory duty. Writs are issued for the performance of public duties. Though Article 226 of the Constitution of India is worded in such a way that a writ of mandamus could be issued even against a private authority such private authority must be discharging a public function and the right sought to be enforced must be a public duty."
The appeal that Agence France Press, a French private international news agency, was subject to the High Court's writ jurisdiction since it was a news agency performing a public duty and was thus dismissed by the Court with a cost of Rs. 50,000.
According to the Court, neither Agence France Press was established by any Indian legislation, nor was it given any tasks that might be classified as "Governmental" or directly related to them, important for the general welfare, or essential to people's daily lives.
"Respondent No.2/Agence France Press was constituted in France and as far as India is concerned, Respondent No.2/Agence France Press is only a private entity," the Court said.
The appeal was made in response to the single judge's decision to deny Prakash Singh's claim of racial harassment and discrimination against Agence France-Presse in his petition. The court rejected the argument because it was unpersuasive.
A newspaper or other organisation that disseminates news cannot be considered to be fulfilling a public duty, the sole judge had said.
The division bench determined in the appeal that the complaint against the aforementioned news agency was not made when it was carrying out its obligations as a news agency.
Additionally, it was said that the aforementioned complaint against Agence France Press, a foreign corporation, was ineligible for writ jurisdiction since it involved an employer-employee relationship, which is ineligible under any legal standard to be referred to be a public function.
"The Respondent No.2/Agence France Press cannot be termed as a State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India and is, therefore, not amenable to writ jurisdiction. The Respondent No.2/Agence France Press is an entity of France and even if the contention of the Petitioner is taken into account that the said news agency has been constituted by the Act of Parliament of France and is engaged in the activity of public function, it still cannot be termed as a State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India," the Court concluded.
Further noting that the appeal was a pointless petition that wasted valuable court time, it was therefore rejected at a fee of Rs. 50000.