Introduction

• This is an important judgment in order to understand Article 12 of the Constitution of India, 1950. The “test for a State or an authority under Article 12” as decided in Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Science and Others (2002) was followed in the present case.
  • The aforementioned case observed that it was no longer necessary for an authority under Article 12 to originate from a statute and what was necessary was the government’s pervasive control along with other conditions.

Facts

• The International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT) is an international organization co-founded by various international organizations under the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR), including about 50 governments across the world and other international organizations, to help to develop countries in semi-arid tropics to ease rural poverty and hunger in environmentally sustainable ways.
• The appellants were employees of the respondent (ICRISAT).
• Their services were terminated on the charges of proven misconduct based on the ICRISAT Personnel Policy Statement, set because of international employment policies.
• They filed writ petitions before the High Court of Karnataka against ICRISAT and the Union of India. Both the petitions were dismissed so this appeal lied to Apex Court.

Issues Involved

• Does ICRISAT fall within the ambit of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, within the meaning of “State”?
• What type of organization is ICRISA, exactly?
• Was the High Court right in holding that it was not amenable to the writ jurisdiction under Article 226?

Observations

• A writ under Article 226 lies only when the petitioner establishes that his or her fundamental right is, or some other legal right has been infringed. The claim that ICRISAT violated appellant’s fundamental rights under Article 14 and 16 would be maintainable against ICRISAT only if it was a State or authority under Article 12 of the Constitution of India.
• After the tests for determining whether an organization was either a State or authority under Article 12, the ICRISAT was not found to be a State under Article 12 on grounds mentioned below:
  • ICRISAT was observed to be a non-profit organization whose objective was to help developing countries to alleviate rural poverty and hunger in ways that are environmentally sustainable.
  • It was not set up by the Government and it provided its services voluntarily to large number of countries including India.
  • ICRISAT was neither being controlled by the Government nor was it accountable to the Government.
  • Indian Government’s financial contribution was minimal to ICRISAT.
  • ICRISAT’s administration only involves participation of 3 government officials out of its 15 members.
• ICRISAT did not fulfill any of the tests laid down by Constitution Bench in Pradeep Kumar (2002) case and therefore ICRISAT was held not to be a State or other authority under Article 12 of the Constitution of India.
• A writ under Article 226 can lie against a ‘person’ if it is a statutory body or performs a public function or discharges a public or statutory duty,” and since ICRISAT was not set up by a statue nor were its activities statutorily controlled, the Court held that High Court was right in not maintaining a writ petition was against ICRISAT.

Conclusion

• Organization has been set up as nonprofit research and training centre to help developing countries alleviate rural poverty and hunger therefore, not a ‘e ambit of Article 12 of the Constitution of India.
• It is not set up, not controlled by the government and gives the service to a large number of countries voluntarily.

Notes

Article 12 of Constitution of India deals with meaning of State provided unless the context otherwise requires, the State includes the Government and Parliament of India and the Government and the Legislature of each of the States and all local or other authorities within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India.

Article 226 of Constitution of India deals with Power of High Court to issue certain writs provided Notwithstanding anything in Article 32 every High Court shall have powers, throughout the territories in relation to which it exercise jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government, within those territories directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibitions, quo warranto and certiorari, or any of them, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for any other purpose.