CHANDER MOHAN KHANNA versus NATIONAL COUNCIL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH AND TRAINING AND ORS.

Citation: [1991] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 165 · Decided: 17-09-1991 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

CHANDER MOHAN KHANNA 
v. 
J 
NATIONAL COUNCIL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEA~CH A19D 
TRAINING AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 17,1991 
{K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY AND YOGESHWAR D~YAL,JJ.) 
~..... 
Constitution of India: 
A 
B 
A1. '2-NCERT whether "State"-Indicative indicia a~td deten11ina-
C 
tive factors - What are. 
In a writ petition challenging the termination of services of the 
appellant, who was an employee in the National Council of Educational 
Research & Training (NCERT), the High Court upheld the preliminary 
objection that the writ petition was not maintainable as NCERT wa~6t D 
an instrumentality or authority within the meaning of Art. 12 o'f the 
. 
I 
. 
Constitution. Aggrieved, the appellant filed the appeal by spe~ial leave to 
this Court. 
On the question whether NCERT is "State" as defined under Article 
12 of the Constitution, 
E 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court, 
HELD: 1.1. Like all societies, having a Memorandum of Association 
and Rules for internal management, the National Council of Educational 
Research and Training is a society registered under the Societies 
Registration Act. (168 E] 
F 
1.2. Having regard to the object, functions, activities, sources of 
funds of NCERT, freedom of application of its income and property 
towards the promotion of its objectives and implementation of 
programmes, confinement of Government control only to proper G 
utilisation llf the grant, and largely being an autonomous body, the 
institution does not satisfy the requirements of "State" under Article 12 of 
the Constitution. (169 G-H; 170A-C; 171 C-D] 
Tekraj Vasandlti alias K.L. Basandlti v. Union of India (1988] 2 SCR-
260, Sablijit Tewari v. Union of India and Ors., [19751 1 SCC 485, referred to. 
H 
165 
166 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1991) SUPP. 1 S. C.R. 
A 
Ajay Basia v. Khalid Mujib Seltravardlti, (1981) 1 SCC 722 P.K 
)L.--
Ramacltandra Iyer v. Union of India, (1984) 2 SCC 141 distinguished. 
2. Article 12 should not be stretched so as to bring in every 
autonomous body which has some nexus with the Government within the 
sweep of the expression "State". A wide enlargement of the meaning must 
B be tempered by a wise limitation. It must not be lost sight of.that in the 
modern concept of Welfare State ; independent institution; corporation 
and agency are generally subject to State control. The State control does 
not render such bodies as "State" under Article 12. 
C 
The State control, however vast and pervasive, is not determinative. 
The financial contribution by the State is also not conclusive. [168 A-BJ 
3. The powers, functions, finances and control of the government 
are some of the indicating factors to answer the question whether a body is 
"State" or not. These are merely indicative indicia and are by no means 
D conclusive or clinching in any case. Each case should be handled with care 
a11d caution. [167 E-G] 
Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagat Ram, (1975) 1 SCC 421; R.D. Sltetty v. 
Intemational Airport Authority, [1979)3 SCC 489, and Som Prakash Rekhi v. 
E Union of India, [1981) 1 SCC 449, referred to . 
F 
G 
4.1 The combination of State aid coupled with an unusual degree of 
control over the management and policies of the body, and rendering of an 
important public service being the obligatory functions of the State may 
largely point out that the body is "State". [168 B-C] 
4.2. lfthe Government operates behind a corporate veil, carrying·out 
governmental activity and governmental functions of vital public 
importance, there may be little difficulty in identifying the body as "State", 
within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. [168 CJ 
Central Inland Water Transpor:t Corporation v. Brojonath Gangoli, 
(1986) 3 SCC 156, Tekraj Vasandlti alias K.L. Basa11dhi v. Union of India, 
(1988) 2 SCR 260, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDlCTION : Civil Appeal No. 1699 of 
H 1981. 
• 
KHANNA 
v. 
NCERT [ SHETIY, J.) 
167 
-~-
From the Judgment and order dated 10.4.1980 of the Delhi H~ A 
Court in Civil Writ No. 450of1971. 
H.K. Puri for the Appellant. 
The Judgment of the Court was ·delivered by 
B 
K. JAGANNATHA SHETIY, J. Whether the National Council of 
Educational Research and Training (NCERT) is "State" as defined under 
Article 12 of the Constitution ? This is the only question that calls for 
decision in this appeal. The appellant was an employee of the NCERT. His 
services were terminated by the Secretary of NCERT. Challenging the 
termination he moved the Delhi High Court under Article 226 of the- Con-
C
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.