Kishor Madhukar Pinglikar v Automotive Research Association of India (2019)

The Supreme Court of India upheld the decision of the Bombay High Court, which had ruled that the Automotive Research Association of India (ARAI) is not a ‘State’ under Article 12 of the Constitution. The bench, comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Bela M. Trivedi, observed that determining whether an entity qualifies as a ‘State’ requires a comprehensive evaluation of its functions, activities, and the extent of government control. This judgement provides clarity on the criteria for assessing ‘State’ status under Article 12.

Facts of Kishor Madhukar Pinglikar v Automotive Research Association of India

The Bombay High Court had dismissed a writ petition filed against ARAI. ARAI’s primary objective and activities are related to motor vehicles, which are not directly or indirectly linked to government functions. ARAI’s functions mainly benefit its members, who are companies involved in the manufacture of motor vehicles and related products.

Under Rule 126 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, manufacturers and importers are required to submit vehicle prototypes to designated associations like ARAI for certification of compliance with the Motor Vehicle Act and Rules.

Issues Involved

• Whether ARAI can be considered a ‘State’ under Article 12 of the Constitution.
• To what extent the performance of public functions or duties qualifies an organisation as ‘State’.
• The significance of government control in determining the ‘State’ status of an organisation.

Kishor Madhukar Pinglikar v Automotive Research Association of India Judgement

The Supreme Court in Kishor Madhukar Pinglikar v Automotive Research Association of India observed that the mere presence of some element of public duty or function is insufficient to bring an entity within the scope of Article 12. A holistic view of the organisation’s functions and activities, including its primary functions, must be considered when determining its ‘State’ status.

The court noted that ARAI is neither functionally nor administratively controlled by the government.  The Memorandum of Association of ARAI shows that its Council enjoys substantial freedom and independence.

The government’s supervision over ARAI is limited to specific areas and does not amount to pervasive or deep control. The court further noted that one particular function assigned to ARAI, which is not its primary function and constitutes only a small part of its activities, would not be decisive in determining its status.

The court emphasised that the classification of an entity as a ‘State’ is not based on rigid principles but is determined by cumulative facts establishing government control. To support its reasoning, the court referred to the seven-judge bench decision in Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology (2002).

Conclusion

The Supreme Court in Kishor Madhukar Pinglikar v Automotive Research Association of India concluded that ARAI is not an agency or instrumentality of the government and does not undergo deep and pervasive government control. The court highlighted that for an organisation to be deemed a ‘State’ under Article 12, it must be financially, functionally, and administratively dominated by or under the control of the government. 

The mere presence of regulatory control or involvement in public functions does not automatically make an organisation a ‘State’. This ruling underscores the importance of a comprehensive evaluation of the organisation’s functions, activities, and the extent of government involvement, rather than focusing on isolated functions or minimal government control.