- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Sabhajit Tewary v. Union Of India And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
The petitioner, a junior stenographer employed by the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), filed Writ Petition No. 43 of 1972. He sought a declaration that two letters—reflecting recommendations of CSIR’s Finance Sub-Committee regarding stenographers’ remuneration—were discriminatory and violated Article 14 of the Constitution. Specifically, he claimed entitlement to the same number of advance increments that had been approved for newly appointed stenographers.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research is an “authority” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, thereby making its actions amenable to judicial review under Articles 14 and 16.
- If CSIR is an Article 12 authority, whether the impugned letters unlawfully discriminate against the petitioner in violation of Article 14.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner’s Arguments
- CSIR, though registered under the Societies Registration Act, functions as an agency of the Government because:
- The Prime Minister of India is the ex-officio President (Rule 3).
- The Governing Body includes government nominees and its members’ tenure can be terminated by the Government of India.
- Rule 46 requires Government sanction for framing or amending bye-laws governing service conditions.
- Under the Allocation of Business Rules, all CSIR matters fall within the Department of Science and Technology.
- These features collectively demonstrate pervasive governmental control, transforming CSIR into an Article 12 authority whose acts must satisfy the equality mandate of Article 14.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Praga Tools Corporation v. C.A. Imanual, (1969) 1 SCC 585; (1969) 3 SCR 773 | Companies incorporated under the Companies Act are not departments of Government and their employees are not entitled to protections under Article 311. | The Court analogised CSIR to such companies, concluding that incorporation under the Societies Registration Act similarly insulates it from being an Article 12 authority. |
| Heavy Engineering Mazdoor Union v. State of Bihar, (1969) 1 SCC 765; (1969) 3 SCR 995 | Government-controlled companies possess an independent legal personality separate from the State. | Used to reinforce that mere governmental control or shareholding does not convert an entity into a constitutional “authority.” |
| Dr. S.L. Agarwal v. General Manager, Hindustan Steel Ltd., (1970) 1 SCC 177; (1970) 3 SCR 363 | Statutorily created or government-controlled corporations are not necessarily part of the State under Article 12. | Strengthened the Court’s view that CSIR, lacking a statutory genesis, cannot be treated as State for constitutional purposes. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court held that to challenge CSIR’s circulars under Articles 14 and 16, the petitioner had to first prove that CSIR is an “authority” under Article 12. It examined CSIR’s constitutional framework:
- CSIR is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, not a statutory corporation.
- Governmental presence—such as the Prime Minister’s ex-officio presidency, government nominees on the Governing Body, and the power to terminate membership—demonstrates supervision but not identity with the State.
- Management powers under Rules 45 and 46, while subject to Government sanction, do not alter CSIR’s independent legal status.
- Reliance on the Allocation of Business Rules merely shows administrative oversight, not constitutional absorption.
By applying the principles laid down in Praga Tools, Heavy Engineering, and Dr. S.L. Agarwal, the Court concluded that governmental control or financial interest alone is insufficient to characterise a registered society as an Article 12 authority. Consequently, CSIR’s actions are not subject to constitutional scrutiny under Articles 14 and 16.
Holding and Implications
Writ Petition Dismissed.
Because CSIR is not an Article 12 authority, the petitioner’s challenge under Articles 14 and 16 fails. No broader precedent was set; the ruling reaffirms existing jurisprudence that entities incorporated under general company or society legislation, even with significant governmental involvement, retain a juridical identity separate from the State. The parties were directed to bear their own costs.
A.N Ray, C.J— In Writ Petition No. 43 of 1972 the petitioner who is a junior stenographer in the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research asked for an order declaring two letters to be discriminatory and violative of Article 14. The two letters relate to recommendations of the Finance Sub-Committee of the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research with regard to remuneration of stenographers. In short, the petitioner's allegations are that he should be granted the same number of advance increments as approved and granted to new entrants.
2. In order to entitle the petitioner to impeach the circular on the ground of infraction of Articles 14 and 16, the petitioner has to establish that the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research is an authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution.
3. The Council is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act. Reliance was placed by counsel for the petitioner on these features of the society. Under Rule 3, the Prime Minister of India is the ex-officio President of the Society. The Governing Body under Rule 30 consists of inter alia some persons appointed by the Government of India representing the administrative ministry under which the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research is included, and the Ministry of Finance and one or more members appointed by the Government of India. The Government of India may terminate the membership of any member or at one and the same time of all members other than the ex-officio members of the Governing Body. Rule 45 states that the Governing Body shall have the management of all the affairs and funds of the society. Rule 46 states that the Governing Body shall have power, with the sanction of the Government of India to frame, amend or repeal bye-laws not inconsistent with the rules for the administration and management of the affairs of the Society and in particular to provide for the terms and tenure of appointments, emoluments, allowances, rules of discipline and other conditions of service of the officers and staff of the Society. Reference was also made to the Government of India (Allocation of Business) Rules, 1961 and in particular to p. 76 where it is stated that all matters relating to the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research are under the department of Science and Technology.
4. Extracting the features as aforesaid, it was contended that these would indicate that the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research was really an agency of the Government. This contention is unsound. The society does not have a statutory character like the Oil and Natural Gas Commission, or the Life Insurance Corporation or Industrial Finance Corporation. It is a society incorporated in accordance with the provisions of the Societies Registration Act. The fact that the Prime Minister is the President or that the Government appoints nominees to the Governing Body or that the Government may terminate the membership will not establish anything more than the fact that the Government takes special care that the promotion, guidance and cooperation of scientific and industrial research, the institution and financing of specific research, establishment or development and assistance to special institutions or departments of the existing institutions for scientific study of problems affecting particular industry in a trade, the utilisation of the result of the researches conducted under the auspices of the Council towards the development of industries in the country are carried out in a responsible manner.
5. This Court has held in Praga Tools Corporation v. C.A Imanual (1969) 1 SCC 585, (1969) 3 SCR 773, Heavy Engineering Mazdoor Union v. State of Bihar (1969) 1 SCC 765, (1969) 3 SCR 995 and in S.L Agarwal v. General Manager, Hindustan Steel Ltd. (1970) 1 SCC 177, (1970) 3 SCR 363 that the Praga Tools Corporation, Heavy Engineering Mazdoor Union and Hindustan Steel Ltd. are all companies incorporated under the Companies Act and the employees of these companies do not enjoy the protection available to government servants as contemplated in Article 311. The companies were held in those cases to have independent existence of the Government and by the law relating to corporations. These could not be held to be departments of the Government.
6. For these reasons we are of opinion that the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research is not an authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. The writ petition is dismissed.
7. Parties will pay and bear their own costs in this writ petition.
Alert