Pradeep Kumar Biswas vs Indian Institute of Chemical Biology (2002) 5 SCC 111

The case of Pradeep Kumar Biswas vs Indian Institute of Chemical Biology (2002) 5 SCC 111 is a landmark judgement in Indian constitutional law, particularly concerning the interpretation of Article 12 of the Indian Constitution. The case revisited and overruled the earlier decision in Sabhajit Tewary v. Union of India (1975) and provided a comprehensive analysis of the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) to determine whether it qualified as a “State” under Article 12. 

This case significantly impacted the scope of fundamental rights enforcement and the ability of individuals to seek constitutional remedies against autonomous bodies with substantial government control.

Facts of Pradeep Kumar Biswas vs. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology

1. Background: In 1972, Sabhajit Tewary, a Junior Stenographer at CSIR, filed a writ petition under Article 32, seeking parity in remuneration with newly recruited stenographers. A 5-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court rejected his claim, ruling that CSIR was not an “authority” under Article 12. As a result, the writ was not maintainable.
2. Present Case: The appellants (employees of the Indian Institute of Chemical Biology, a unit of CSIR) challenged their termination before the Calcutta High Court, arguing that CSIR is a “State” under Article 12. The Calcutta High Court dismissed their petition, citing Sabhajit Tewary as precedent. The Supreme Court (2-Judge Bench) referred the case to a 7-Judge Bench, considering the need to reassess the ruling in Sabhajit Tewary in light of subsequent rulings on similar institutions.

Issues Involved

1. Does CSIR fall under the ambit of “State” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution?
2. Should the larger Bench overrule the precedent set by the Sabhajit Tewary case?

Legal Provisions Considered

• Article 12 of the Indian Constitution: Defines “State” to include the Government of India, Parliament, State Governments, Legislatures, local authorities, and other authorities within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India. The key issue was whether CSIR qualifies as an “other authority” under Article 12.
• Article 32 of the Indian Constitution: Grants individuals the right to approach the Supreme Court for the enforcement of fundamental rights.
• Societies Registration Act, 1860: Governs the registration and functioning of societies, under which CSIR was registered.

Observations and Analysis by the Supreme Court in Pradeep Kumar Biswas vs Indian Institute of Chemical Biology

Majority Opinion (Justice Ruma Pal) – CSIR is a “State” under Article 12

1. Test for Determining “State” Under Article 12: A body must be financially, functionally, and administratively dominated by the Government. Such control must be deep and pervasive. Regulatory control alone is insufficient to bring an institution under Article 12.
2. Financial and Administrative Control of CSIR: CSIR was created by the Government to continue functions previously handled by the Department of Commerce. At least 70% of CSIR’s funds come from Government grants. The Government controls financial expenditures and property ownership. The CSIR’s Governing Body requires Government approval for by-laws and financial decisions.
3. Governmental Control Over CSIR Employees: CSIR cannot unilaterally change terms and conditions of employment. Service conditions require Government approval.
4. Government Ownership of CSIR’s Assets: The Government ultimately owns CSIR’s assets and funds, even though they are nominally held by the society.
5. Role of the Governing Body: While not all members are government officials, the Prime Minister is the ex-officio President, and key members are appointed by the Government. Government exercises a controlling influence over CSIR’s administration and policy-making.
6. Final Decision: CSIR is a “State” under Article 12, and hence, a writ petition is maintainable against it.

Dissenting Opinion (Justices R.C. Lahoti & Doraiswamy Raju) – CSIR is NOT a “State”

1. Definition of “Authority” Under Article 12: A body must be created by a statute or under a statute. It must have law-making powers or the ability to issue binding directives. Merely receiving government funds or being regulated by the Government does not make an entity a “State”.
2. Autonomy of CSIR: CSIR was not created by a statute but is registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. It does not make laws or issue legally binding regulations. 30% of CSIR’s funding comes from non-Government sources. CSIR engages in research that private organisations can also conduct, meaning its functions are not inherently governmental.
3. Limited Government Control: The Government does not own CSIR entirely. Not all Governing Body members are Government nominees. The Government cannot issue binding directives to CSIR.CSIR does not enjoy monopoly status.
4. Final Conclusion: CSIR is not a “State” under Article 12. The precedent in Sabhajit Tewary was correctly decided and should not be overruled. The appeal should be dismissed.

Pradeep Kumar Biswas vs Indian Institute of Chemical Biology Judgement and Conclusion

In this landmark case, the 7-Judge Bench overruled the decision in Sabhajit Tewary and held that the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) qualifies as an “authority” under Article 12 of the Indian Constitution. As a result, writ petitions are now maintainable against CSIR, allowing individuals to seek constitutional remedies against it.

Key Takeaways from the Judgement

1. The judgement expanded the scope of Article 12, bringing more government-funded and government-controlled institutions under the ambit of constitutional scrutiny.
2. It reversed 27 years of precedent, which had previously prevented individuals from filing writ petitions against CSIR.
3. The court clarified the criteria for determining whether an institution qualifies as a “State”, setting a significant legal precedent for future cases.

Final Thoughts

The Pradeep Kumar Biswas case is a milestone in Indian constitutional jurisprudence. It redefined the concept of “State” under Article 12, ensuring greater governmental accountability and safeguarding fundamental rights. This judgement has had far-reaching implications for similar institutions, reaffirming the Supreme Court’s role in upholding constitutional values.