Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

Recently, the bench of Justice Abhay S Oka, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanatullah(dissenting) and Justice Augustine George Masih held that Air Force School, Bamrauli is not “State” under Article 12; writ petitions against it not maintainable under Article 226 Constitution of India,1950 (COI) . 

• The Supreme Court held this in the matter of Dileep Kumar Pandey v. Union of India & Ors. (2025).  

What was the Background of Dileep Kumar Pandey v. Union of India & Ors. (2025) Case ? 

• Air Force Schools were established in 1966 to provide education to children of Indian Air Force personnel and are managed by the Indian Air Force Educational and Cultural Society, which was registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 in November 1987. 
• The Air Force School at Bamrauli in District Allahabad obtained affiliation with the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) and operates under the supervision of IAF officers who serve as Officers-in-Charge. 
• Dileep Kumar Pandey was appointed as a trained graduate teacher for physical education at the school in July 2005 following a selection process conducted by IAF officers, initially on probation with multiple extensions. 
• In June 2007, the school declared Pandey surplus and offered him either contractual employment or termination, prompting him to file a writ petition challenging this decision and seeking confirmation of his employment. 
• Sanjay Kumar Sharma was appointed as a post-graduate Commerce teacher in 1993, later became officiating Principal in 2003, but faced disciplinary proceedings and termination after complaints were filed against him. 
• Both teachers filed writ petitions in the Allahabad High Court arguing that the Air Force School constituted a 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution, making their employment disputes subject to constitutional remedy through writ jurisdiction. 
• The appellants contended that the IAF exercises deep and pervasive control over the school through funding, pay scale determination, construction using public funds, and administrative oversight through the Command Schools Management Committee. 
• The school and Union of India argued that Air Force Schools operate through voluntary contributions from IAF personnel as Non-Public Funds, function independently without statutory regulation, and maintain private contractual relationships with staff. 
• The central legal dispute involved determining whether institutions like Air Force Schools, despite performing educational functions and having connections with government agencies, qualify as 'State' or 'authority' under Article 12 for purposes of constitutional remedies. 
• The resolution of this constitutional question would determine whether employees of such institutions could seek relief through writ petitions under Article 226 or were limited to pursuing remedies through ordinary civil courts for breach of private contract. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

Majority Opinion by Justice Abhay S. Oka with Justice Augustine George Masih concurring: 

• The Air Force Educational and Cultural Society is a non-profit welfare association managing a non-public fund school financed primarily through student fees and Air Force personnel contributions. 
• No evidence exists of Central Government or Ministry of Defence control over the school's functioning, and the school is not governed by statutory rules despite IAF officers serving ex-officio on committees. 
• The School Managing Committee, not the IAF, exercised day-to-day control, and the 1985 CBSE application claiming full IAF financing lacked supporting evidence. 
• Even if the school performs public functions, this alone is insufficient to bring it within Article 12's scope, following precedents in St. Mary's Education Society and Army Welfare Education Society. 
• The teacher-school relationship was contractual without public law elements, making it unsuitable for writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of COI. 

Dissenting Opinion by Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah: 

• The Air Force School was amenable to writ jurisdiction as it was founded by IAF as a welfare initiative and administered by serving IAF officers exercising authority over critical functions. 
• The IAF exercised deep and pervasive control over the school's mundane workings, not merely regulatory control, as evidenced by undersigning day-to-day orders. 
• Imparting education is a public function, and since the school served both IAF and non-IAF families under government-like control, its operations affected public interest. 
• The "non-public funds" claim was rejected as these funds were facilitated and exempted by the Government, bearing public character and being traceable to the public exchequer. 
• IAF officers' involvement in principal selection and interviews, sometimes allegedly favouring relatives, proved the school was not insulated from official influence. 
• The predominant composition of serving IAF officers in governing bodies established institutional IAF involvement, with decisions made in official capacity rather than private capacity. 

What is "State" Under Article 12 of the Constitution of India? 

Definition of State Under Article 12 

Article 12 of the Constitution of India provides an inclusive definition of "State" for the purpose of fundamental rights enforcement. According to Article 12, unless the context otherwise requires, the State includes: 

• Government and Parliament of India: 
  • The Union Executive and Parliament of India 
  • Any Department of Government or institution under the control of a Department of Government (e.g., Income Tax Department) 
  • The President while acting in his official capacity 
• Government and Legislature of Each State: 
  • The State Executive and Legislature of each State 
  • Includes Union Territories as well 
• Local or Other Authorities Within the Territory of India: 
  • Local Authorities: As defined in Section 3(31) of the General Clauses Act, 1897 - municipal committees, district boards, bodies of commissioners, or other authorities legally entitled to or entrusted by the Government with control or management of municipal or local funds 
  • Examples: Municipalities, District Boards, Panchayats, mining settlement boards 
  • Other Authorities: This term is not specifically defined, leading to judicial interpretation 

Tests for Determining "State" Under Article 12 

• Union of India v. R.C. Jain (1981) Test for Local Authorities: 
  • An authority qualifies as a "local authority" if it: 
  • Has a separate legal existence 
  • Functions in a defined area 
  • Has the power to raise funds on its own 
  • Enjoys autonomy (self-rule) 
  • Is entrusted by statute with functions usually entrusted to municipalities 
• R.D. Shetty v. Airport Authority of India (1979) - Five-Point Test: 
  • Justice P.N. Bhagwati established criteria to determine if a body is an agency or instrumentality of the State: 
  • Financial Resources: State is the chief funding source (entire share capital held by government) 
  • Deep and Pervasive Control: Extensive state control over operations 
  • Functional Character: Functions are governmental in essence with public importance 
  • Government Department Transfer: A government department transferred to a corporation 
  • Monopoly Status: Enjoys monopoly status conferred or protected by the State 
    • Note: This test is illustrative, not conclusive, and must be applied with care and caution. 

Why the IAF School was NOT Considered "State" - Supreme Court Ruling? 

The Supreme Court held that the Air Force School in Bamrauli was NOT a "State" under Article 12 for the following reasons: 

• Nature of Organization: 
  • The Air Force Educational and Cultural Society is a non-profit welfare association 
  • The school is a non-public fund school 
  • Finances derived primarily from student fees and contributions by Air Force personnel through welfare funds 
• Absence of Government Control: 
  • No evidence of control by Central Government or Ministry of Defence over school's functioning 
  • School not governed by statutory rules despite IAF officers serving ex-officio on committees 
  • School Managing Committee (not IAF) exercised day-to-day control 
• Financial Independence: 
  • Despite 1985 CBSE application claiming "fully financed by IAF," no evidence of actual IAF funding 
  • Even if school was built with public funds, no evidence of recurring government grants or statutory control 
  • Funds were primarily from private sources (fees and welfare contributions) 
• Limited IAF Involvement: 
  • While school may follow IAF pay scales, this did not constitute pervasive control 
  • Education Code followed was not a statutory instrument 
  • Code regulations were not legally binding like statutory rules 
• Legal Relationship: 
  • Teacher-school relationship was contractual in nature 
  • No public law element involved 
  • Not subject to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 

Dissenting Opinion 

Justice Amanullah disagreed, arguing that: 

• IAF exercised deep and pervasive control through serving officers in management. 
• School performed public functions (education). 
• Even "non-public funds" had public character as they were government-facilitated. 
• IAF's involvement in day-to-day operations made it subject to Article 12.