G. BASSI REDDY ETC. ETC. versus INTERNATIONAL CROPS RESEARCH INSTT. AND ANR.

Citation: [2003] 1 S.C.R. 1174 · Decided: 14-02-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RUMA PAL · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
G. BASSI REDDY ETC. ETC. 
v. 
INTERNATIONAL CROPS RESEARCH INSTT. AND ANR. 
FEBRUARY 14. 2003 
[RUMA PAL AND B.N. SR!KRISHNA, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, I950-Artic/es 226. 12 and 14-Writ Petition 
against International Crops Research Institute-Maintainability of-Held, since 
International Crops Research Institute was not set up by the Government and 
it is giving its services voluntarily to large number of countries besides India · 
thus, not a 'State' or 'other authority' within the meaning of Article I 2-
Hence writ petition not maintainable. 
International Crops Research· institute (ICRISA T)-respondent 
D No.I was set up in pursuance of an agreement between Government of 
India and Ford Foundation. It was a non profit research institution to 
conduct research and training programmes in the field of agriculture on 
voluntary basis. Clause 6 of the agreement granted immunity to ICRISAT 
by the Government of India under the United Nations (Privileges and 
Immunities) Act, 1947 and also in terms of the agreement, guidelines 
E known as personal policy statement were framed to deal with the internal 
discipline. Respondent No. I terminated services .of its employees-
appellants. Aggrieved appellants filed writ petitions which were dismissed 
holding that writ petitions under Article 226 were not maintainable against 
Respondent No. I. Hence the present appeals. 
F 
Appellant contended that the power to grant immunity to 
international Organizations' under the United Nations (Privileges and 
Imm unities) Act, 1947 did not extend to ICRISAT; that the Union of India 
could not have granted immunity from legal process to ICRISAT under 
the 1947 Act and that in any event the grant of such immunity could not 
G serve to curtail the Court's Constitutional power under Article 226 and 
thus violative of Article 14; that the provisions of the March agreement 
and the notification would, have to be read in a manner in keeping with 
the constitutional provisions; and that the impugned order of termination 
was arbitrary and in violation of the principles of natural justice and was 
devoid of procedural fairness. 
H 
1174 
,. 
< 
-+ 
).. 
; 
y 
G BASSI REDDY r. INTERNATIONAL CROPS RESEARCH INSTT. 
1175 
ICRISAT and Union of India interalia contended that ICRISAT was 
not subject to the Court's jurisdiction under.Article 226 as it was neither 
the Government nor any \\'ing of the Government nor was it in any way 
accountable or subject to or under the financial or administrative control 
of the Government; and that in any event the action which was taken 
against the appellants was in accordance with the procedural rules framed 
by ICRISAT which were fair and in keeping with the domestic law-
Industrial Employment (Standing) Orders, 1946. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: I. I. A writ under Article 226 lies only when the petitioner 
establishes that his or her fundamental right or some other legal right has 
been infringed. The claim as made by the appellant in his writ petition is 
founded on Articles 14 and 16. The claim would not be maintainable 
against ICRISAT unless ICRISAT were a 'State' or 'authority' within the 
meaning of Article 12. ICRISAT was not set up by the Government and 
it gives its services voluntarily to a large number of countries besides India. 
It is not controlled by nor is it accountable to the Government. The Indian 
Government's financial contribution to ICRISAT is minimal. Its 
participation in ICRISAT's administration is limited to 3 out of 15 
members. Therefore, it cannot be said that ICRISAT is a 'State' or 'other 
authority' as defined in Article 12 of the Constitution. 
(1185-F, G; 1186-B, CJ 
Calcutta Gas Co. v. State of W.B., AIR [1962] SC 1944 and Pradeep 
Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology and Ors., (2002] 5 SCC 
II, referred to. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
1.2. A writ under Article 226 also lies against a 'person' for 'any F 
· " 
other purpose'. The power of the High Coil rt to issue such a writ to "any 
person" can only mean the power to issue such a writ to any person to 
whom, according to well-established principles, a writ lay. That a writ may 
issue to an appropriate person for the enforcement of any of the rights 
conferred by Part III is clear enough from the language used. But the G 
words "for any other purpose" must mean for any other purpose for which 
any of the writs mentioned would, according to well established principles 
issue. (1186-D, E] 
Car/shad

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.