CLAT 2026 Preparation Plan – Click Here to Start Smart   |   Target CLAT 2026 Crash Course – Exam Date Out, Enroll Now   |   CG Judiciary Prelims Test Series – Exam Date Out, Join Now   |   CG Judiciary Prelims Preparation Strategy – Click Here to Begin
         









Home / Constitution of India

Constitutional Law

State of U.P v. Radhey Shyam Rai (2009) 5 SCC 577

    «    »
 29-Jul-2023

Introduction

  • State of U.P v. Radhey Shyam Rai is a 2009, constitutional law case before the honorable Supreme Court of India concerning the interpretation of the meaning of “state” under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, 1950 and its applicability to a cooperative society that is Uttar Pradesh Ganna Kishan Sansthan.

Facts

  • The petitioner in this case worked as a data processing officer in the Uttar Pradesh Ganna Kishan Sansthan,
    • The Sansthan was an establishment of the government, which performed functions like imparting training and knowledge to cane farmers and related persons with the motive of increasing the production of sugar by the state, initially performed by the Cane Development Department.
  • On 28th April 1997, the society’s governing council abolished the Data Processing officers’ posts, and whereto the services of the respondent were dismissed.
  • Aggrieved by this decision, he filed a writ petition before a divisional bench of the Allahabad High Court, which was dismissed.
  • The case was later referred to the full judge bench of the High Court.
    • The full bench held that the Sansthan being an authority would come within the purview of definition of ‘State’ within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India.
  • Aggrieved from the aforementioned decision, the State of the U.P. filed this appeal to the Supreme Court.
  • The issue was taken up by a two-judge Supreme Court bench, comprising Justice S.B. Sinha and Justice Cyriac Joseph. Later their decision was reversed by the full bench of the same court.

Issue Involved

Whether the Uttar Pradesh Ganna Kishan Sansthan, a society registered under the Societies Registration Act of U.P, a `State’ within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India?

Ratio Decidendi

  • The court observed that the Sansthan depends on the state from an administrative and functional point of view.
    • This is based on the evidence that the majority of the members of the governing council held different offices of the state government, and it had to follow the orders of the state government from time to time.
  • Financially too, it was found that the funding of the state government meets almost 80% to 90% of the expenditure of Sansthan.
  • The main aim of Sansthan, which is to impart training and knowledge to cane farmers, with the motive of increasing the production of sugar by the state, which is a state function.

Observations

  • Based on the observations mentioned above of the financial, administrative aspects, and objectives of Sansthan, they found it to be a ‘State’ within the meaning of ‘other bodies’ under Article 12 of the Constitution of India.
  • The appeal filed by the State of U.P was dismissed, upholding the decision of the full judge bench of the High Court.

Conclusion

  • Through this 2-judge bench, the Supreme Court has re-iterated the previous, well-settled rulings in Rajasthan State Electricity Board v. Mohan Lal (1967), Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi (1981), and the most famous case of Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology (2002), clearing any ambiguity left with cases relating to the applicability of Article 12 of the Constitution of India.

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