LexINDIAN COUNCIL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH (ICSSR) versus NEETU GAUR & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 850 : 2025 INSC 374 Indian Council of Social Science Research (ICSSR) v. Neetu Gaur & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 4025 of 2025) 20 March 2025 [Sudhanshu Dhulia* and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ.] Issue for Consideration In view of detection of anomalies in the functioning of the beneficiary research institution-Centre for Research in Rural and Industrial Development (CRRID), whether the appellant-Indian Council of Social Science Research (ICSSR) was justified in withholding its grant to CRRID; whether the control exercised by ICSSR on CRRID is ‘deep and pervasive’. Headnotes† Grant-in-Aid – ICSSR's Rules of Grant-in-Aid to Societies and Institutions Doing Research in the field of Social Sciences – Complaints received by ICSSR against CRRID alleging malpractices in its functioning including violation of rules and regulations, misuse of resoures including the grants paid by ICSSR – ICSSR constituted committees to enquire into allegations – Anomalies in the working of CRRID were highlighted, corrective measures recommended – CRRID failed to rectify deficiencies despite ample opportunities – ICSSR stopped releasing the grant – High Court directed ICSSR to release the grant holding that it has the ultimate responsibility of releasing the grant for the salaries of the employees of CRRID – Interference with: Held: The grant was withheld for just and valid reasons – The grant-in-aid is a discretion of ICSSR – The grant-in-aid provided by ICSSR comes with certain conditions required to be followed by the beneficiary institution – Thus, beneficiary institutions like CRRID cannot claim grants as a matter of right – There was a clear finding of various committees that CRRID defaulted and violated the mandate and the directions under which it had to work to receive the aid without any interruption – Further, there is no employer-employee or master-servant relationship between * Author [2025] 3 S.C.R. 851 Indian Council of Social Science Research (ICSSR) v. Neetu Gaur & Ors. the respondents-employees of CRRID and ICSSR – ICSSR is not liable for providing salaries of these employees as it is the responsibility of CRRID to pay them salaries irrespective of whether it gets a grant from ICSSR or not – Order of Single Judge and the impugned order set aside – CRRID to ensure payment of withheld salaries to all its employees – In case, it fails to release this amount, ICSSR to withhold all further grant-in-aid in favour of CRRID. [Paras 18-20, 23, 24, 28] Constitution of India – Art.12 – Control of ICSSR over CRRID – Nature – High Court held that ICSSR has ‘deep and pervasive’ control over CRRID as it has its nominee in Governing Body of CRRID – Correctness: Held: Findings of the High Court are misplaced – The presence of one or even two members of ICSSR in a Governing Body of twelve does not amount to ‘deep and pervasive’ control of the State – As of today there are only three nominees together from ICSSR and State of Punjab in all – This is not 'deep and pervasive' control – Further, ICSSR is indeed an “authority”, within the purview of Art.12 of the Constitution of India – It controls CRRID to an extent inasmuch as CRRID depends on the funds released by ICSSR as grants – But this itself cannot be called a ‘deep and pervasive’ control – A ‘deep and pervasive’ control would require much more than just financing an institution or a body – There is a very loose control over the large affairs of the CRRID, which would include both financial and administrative – The financial control by both ICSSR and the State of Punjab is limited only to their grant-in- aid – ICSSR does not have any power to interfere with the day to day functions of CRRID – The ‘deep and pervasive’ control requires administrative, financial and functional control of such a body to a much higher degree including interference into its day- to-day working – Mere regulatory control cannot mean ‘deep and pervasive’ control – Rules and Regulations of CRRID – Societies Registration Act, 1860. [Paras 16, 17, 21] Case Law Cited S.S Rana v. Registrar Coop. Societies and Anr. [2006] Supp. 1 SCR 311 : (2006) 11 SCC 634; Chander Mohan Khanna v. NCERT [1991] Supp. 1 SCR 165 : (1991) 4 SCC 578; Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd. v. Partha Sarathi Sen Roy [2013] 4 SCR 1018 : (2013) 8 SCC 345 – referred to. 852 [2025] 3 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports List of Acts ICSSR’s Rules of Grant-in-Aid to Societies and Institutions Doing R
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.