Ajay Hasia vs Khalid Mujib Sehravardi

Author: Apurva Shah

Edited by: Shadrack Chai

ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE (not less than 150 words and more than 250 words)

The Supreme Court case of Ajay Hasia vs. Khalid Mujib was centered around  the issue of whether the Regional Engineering College comes under the definition of the concept ‘State’ mentioned in Article 12 and thus is subject to the writ jurisdiction. The case raised an important question before the court as to what is included as a state in Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The other issue raised in the case was the inappropriate distribution of marks for the viva voce and qualification examinations and whether the separate admission process for different state students violates the equality clause under Article 14. The court held in its ruling that a body or entity can be considered a state if it fulfills a certain set of tests. The purpose of each test was to examine different aspects of the institution’s relationship with the government. Due to the deep control of the Government on the REC, The court in its final ruling determined that the college is considered a state under Article 12 and therefore is subject to writ jurisdiction.

Keywords (Minimum 5):

Article 12, equality under Article 14, the definition of state, Article14, instrumentality, viva examination

CASE DETAILS

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The writ petition filed under Article 32 challenged the procedure of admission of Regional Engineering College in Srinagar (hereinafter referred to as REC or college), one of the 15 colleges in the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir registered as a society under the Jammu & Kashmir Registration of Societies Act, 1898. Also, the case is a landmark judgment related to the interpretation of the definition of the term state. As defined in Article 12 of the Constitution of India, the state includes the union and state governments, the Parliament and state legislature, as well as any local or other authorities in the territory of India or under the control of the Indian government. “The first step towards justice is ensuring that power is accountable.” By specifying the range of entities against which fundamental rights are enforceable, Article 12 of the Indian Constitution helps to understand who is liable when these rights are violated. 

FACTS OF THE CASE

Procedural Background of the Case

The petitioners in the case filed a writ petition under Article 32 directly in the Supreme Court

They demanded relief against the unfair admission process of REC

Factual Background of the Case

The issue arose when the authorities of the college issued a notice regarding the vacancies for admission to the first semester of the B.E. course and the petitioners applied for admission

The admission process consisted of a qualification test and a viva voce test -A short interview asking formal questions relating to the candidate’s percentage and residence rather than questions related to the subject

The petitioners found that despite scoring good marks in the qualification test they were unable to secure admission due to low marks in the viva voce test when admissions were declared

They claimed that this process was unjust, as it allowed candidates with lower marks in the qualification test to gain admission based solely on the short viva voce interview.

LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

Whether the college involved comes under the definition of state under Article 12 and thus is amendable to writ jurisdiction

Whether the admission procedure of college is violative of the equality clause under Article 14

PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsels for Petitioner primarily submitted that despite being registered as a society the college acted as a government entity. It was argued that the college’s establishment resulted from government initiatives, and a significant portion of its funding had come from the Governments of India and Jammu and Kashmir.

The petitioners pointed out the composition of the Board of Governors as evidence of the government’s control over college

The petitioners argued that the true nature and character of the college were governmental making it a state under Article 12 They contended that the formality of registering the college as a society under the Jammu and Kashmir Registration of Societies Act, 1898, did not change the original substance of the institution

They urged the court to look beyond legal form and consider the actual operations which they firmly claimed to be within the government’s authority

RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS:

The counsels for Respondent contended that the college is a society registered under the Jammu and Kashmir Societies Act, 1898 rather than a corporation created by statute. Thus it is not an authority as the meaning of Art. 12 of the Constitution suggests and therefore no writ petition can be filed against it, nor can any complaint be made that it has acted unjustly in the matter of offering admissions and violated the equality clause of the Constitution.

RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

Article 12:– “In this Part, 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 14: – “(Equality before law) The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth.”^[2[1]]

JUDGEMENT

The court gave a decision in favor of the petitioners. The court analyzed various clauses in the memorandum of association and rules of conduct. Taking into consideration the case of R.D Shetty vs. International Airport Authority and having fulfilled the required condition to be called a State the court held that society was an agency of Government. This conclusion was based on the government’s extensive control over its functioning including the composition which was determined by the representatives of government and the requirement for society to comply with the direction set by the government. The Memorandum of Association of Society and the Rules Act of the Society indicates that the college was owned, controlled, and managed by the Government and hence a State under Article 12 of the Constitution under “Other authorities.”

They emphasized that it did not matter whether the corporation was established by legislation or statute for this purpose; what mattered was whether it acted as a government instrumentality or agency.

Regarding the second issue Court closely examined the difference between the classification of doctrine and Article 14. The court did not find any solid evidence supporting the petitioners’ claim that the viva voce examination was too short or irrelevant. The court concluded that the possibility for interviews to be  manipulated is not a sufficient reason to remove them from the selection procedure

However, the court issued guidelines to limit the occurrence of future discrepancies. It advised the college to review the selection procedure with the viva voce examination having a smaller proportion of  marks 

CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

Delivering its verdict on November 13, 1980, the Court held that if an entity is acting as a body of the government in the functional, structural, and financial matters then it can be categorized as a state under Article 12.

The Ajay Hasia vs Khalid Mujib case also included a six-factor test for determining when a corporation can be said to be an instrumentality of government. these tests were previously laid down in the landmark judgment R.D Shetty vs. International Airport Authority 

“ (1)if Government owns all shares of the company, then it is a high indicator that the firm is an agency of the Government  .”

(2) “Where the monetary support provided by the state covers the almost total expenditure of the corporation, it highly suggests the Government effect on the organization.”

(3) “Another relevant factor that can be considered is the monopoly status of the entity granted or protected by the Government .”

 (4) “The presence of strong and extensive state control over the corporation can be a proof of it being the state body “

(5) “If the corporation performs functions that are of public importance and if they are closely aligned with government functions then it’ll be a significant factor in classifying the corporation as a government institution “

In my opinion, the Ajay Hasia vs Khalid Mujib case provides important insights into the interpretation of Article 12. It helps to understand which entities can be held liable when there is a fundamental rights violation.  

REFERENCES

Important Cases Referred

R.D Shetty vs. International Airport Authority 

U.P. Warehousing Corporation v. Vijay Narain

Peeriakaruppan v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors

 E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu

[1] The Constitution of India, Article. 14,1950