A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The case pertains to the maintainability of writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India after the privatization of a public sector entity, Air India Limited (AIL). The appeals arose from the dismissal of writ petitions filed by retired employees seeking redressal for service-related grievances. The Supreme Court adjudicated on three critical issues: (1) whether AIL, post-privatization, could be subjected to writ jurisdiction, (2) whether the appellants were unjustly denied relief due to the change in AIL’s ownership, and (3) whether delays in adjudication of the writ petitions could justify continued jurisdiction. The Court ruled against the appellants, concluding that AIL ceased to be a “State” under Article 12 post-privatization and thus was not amenable to writ jurisdiction.

Keywords: Writ jurisdiction, Article 226, Privatization, State under Article 12, Public duty, Delay in adjudication.

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgement Cause Title:
Mr. R.S. Madireddy and Anr. etc. v. Union of India & Ors.

ii) Case Number:
Civil Appeal Nos. 6473-6476 of 2024

iii) Judgment Date:
16 May 2024

iv) Court:
Supreme Court of India

v) Quorum:
Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta

vi) Author:
Justice Sandeep Mehta

vii) Citation:
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 934 : 2024 INSC 425

viii) Legal Provisions Involved:

• Constitution of India: Articles 12, 14, 16, and 226
• Limitation Act, 1963: Section 14

ix) Judgments Overruled by the Case (if any):
None

x) Case is Related to Which Law Subjects:
Constitutional Law, Administrative Law, Service Law

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGMENT

The appeals arose after the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court dismissed writ petitions filed by former employees of AIL challenging stagnation in pay, anomalies in pay fixation, and retrospective withdrawal of allowances. Initially, AIL was wholly owned by the Government of India and hence amenable to writ jurisdiction. However, during the pendency of the petitions, AIL was privatized, raising the question of continued applicability of writ jurisdiction under Article 226. The appellants sought equitable relief, arguing that their rights crystallized at the time of filing the petitions and should not be negated due to the intervening privatization.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

1. AIL’s Transition:
   Initially a government-owned statutory body, AIL merged with Indian Airlines and was later privatized in 2021 with Talace India Pvt. Ltd. acquiring its ownership. Post-privatization, AIL no longer performed public duties or had State control.

2. Nature of Writ Petitions:
   Employees alleged violations of Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution. They sought remedies for pay stagnation, anomalies in pay fixation, and retrospective withdrawal of allowances.

3. High Court Ruling:
   The High Court dismissed the petitions on grounds of non-maintainability post-privatization but preserved the appellants’ right to seek alternate remedies.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i) Whether AIL, after privatization, remained amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226.
ii) Whether appellants were unjustly non-suited due to AIL’s privatization during the pendency of writ petitions.
iii) Whether delays in adjudication could justify continuation of jurisdiction over AIL.

F) PETITIONER/APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

i) Maintainability of Writs Post-Privatization:
The appellants argued that their right to seek remedy crystallized at the time of filing the writs when AIL was a public entity under Article 12. Relying on Ashok Kumar Gupta v. Union of India, they contended that subsequent privatization should not negate jurisdiction.

ii) Equitable Relief:
Delay in adjudication, attributed to the courts, should not defeat their rights. The appellants emphasized equity over procedural technicalities.

iii) Public Duty Post-Privatization:
The privatized AIL continued to fulfill obligations previously undertaken as a public entity, bringing it within the purview of Article 226. The appellants cited Andi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust v. V.R. Rudani to assert writ jurisdiction over private entities discharging public duties.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

i) Loss of Statehood:
Respondents argued that AIL ceased to be a State under Article 12 after privatization. Consequently, writ jurisdiction under Article 226 was not applicable.

ii) Jurisdiction at the Time of Adjudication:
The High Court’s jurisdiction is determined at the time of adjudication, not filing. Citing Kalpana Yogesh Dhagat v. Reliance Industries Ltd., they contended that privatization precluded writs.

iii) Alternate Remedies Available:
The respondents highlighted the High Court’s liberty to pursue alternate remedies, arguing that appellants were not denied substantive relief but merely directed to another forum.

H) JUDGMENT

a) RATIO DECIDENDI

i) AIL ceased to be a “State” under Article 12 after privatization, losing its amenability to writ jurisdiction under Article 226.
ii) Writ jurisdiction depends on the entity’s status at the time of adjudication, not filing.
iii) Delay in adjudication does not override principles of jurisdiction.

b) OBITER DICTA (if any)

i) Equity may influence relief but cannot override substantive jurisdictional principles.

c) GUIDELINES (if any)

1. Writs under Article 226 cannot be issued to private entities unless they discharge public duties.
2. Privatization renders a public entity immune to writ jurisdiction unless public functions persist.
3. Substantive rights may be pursued through appropriate forums post-privatization.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The ruling underscores the limitations of writ jurisdiction post-privatization and affirms the distinction between public and private duties. The Court’s reliance on precedent ensures consistency but may inadvertently impose procedural hurdles on aggrieved individuals transitioning from public to private regimes.

J) REFERENCES

a) Important Cases Referred

• Andi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust v. V.R. Rudani [(1989) 2 SCC 691]
• Kalpana Yogesh Dhagat v. Reliance Industries Ltd. [2016 SCC OnLine Guj 10186]
• Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology [(2002) 5 SCC 111]

b) Important Statutes Referred

• Constitution of India: Articles 12, 14, 16, 226
• Limitation Act, 1963: Section 14