PRADEEP KUMAR BISWAS AND ORS. versus INDIAN INSTITUTE OF CHEMICAL BIOLOGY AND ORS.

Citation: [2002] 3 S.C.R. 100 · Decided: 16-04-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.P. BHARUCHA · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 7 judgment(s) · cites 8 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
PRADEEP KUMAR BISWAS AND ORS. 
v. 
INDIAN INSTITUTE OF CHEMICAL BIOLOGY AND ORS. 
APRIL 16, 2002 
B 
[S.P. BHARUCHA, CJ., SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI, R.C. 
LAHOTI; N. SANTOSH HEGDE, DORAISWAMY RAJU, RUMA PAL 
AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, I950-Article I2-Council of Scientific and 
C Industrial Research (CSIR)-Whether a 'State '-Held, it is 'State' falling within 
the range of the Article as per the t~ts judicially evolved for the purpose-
Notification bringing CSIR within purview of Section 14(2) of Administrative 
Tribunals Act, I985 is conclusive of the fact that CSIR is a state within the 
meaning of Article I 2. 
D 
E 
Precedent-Normally a precedent which has stood for a length of time 
should not be reversed however erroneous the reasoning is, if it has stood 
unquestioned-But in the facts .of the case, Sabhajit Tewary' case cannot 
stand as an authority since the decision was plainly erroneous-It is Court's 
duty not to perpetuate its mistake. 
Appellants-employees of a Unit of Council of Scientific and Industrial 
Research (CSIR) had filed Writ Petition challenging their termination from 
service. High Court dismissed the same in view of Sabhajit Tewary 's case 
wherein it was held that writ petition against CSIR was not maintainable as 
F 
it was not an authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution 
of India. 
In appeal to this Court, the matter was refered to the Constitution Bench 
for reconsideration of Sabhajit Tewary's case having regard to the 
pronouncement of this Court in several subsequent decisions in respect of 
G several other institutes of similar nature set up by Union of India. 
H 
Thus the question for consideration was whether CSIR is a State within 
the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. 
Answering the question, the Court 
100 
.4'. 
PRADEEP KUMAR BISWAS "'· INDIAN INSTITUTE OF CHEMICAL BIOLOGY 
10} 
HELD: Per Ruma Pal, J. (For herself. CJ/, Quadri, Hedge and Pasayat, A 
JJ.) 
1.1. In view of the facts relating the CSIR, it Is well within the range of 
Article 12, a conclusion which is sustainable when judged according to the 
tests judicially evolved for the purpose. The tests formulated in Ajay Basia's 
case are not a rigid set of principles so that if a body falls within any one of B 
them it must, ex hypothesi, be considered to be a State within the meaning of 
Article 12. The question in each case would be-whether in the light of the 
1 cumulative facts as established, th~ body is financially, functionally and 
administratively dominated by or under the control of the Government Such 
control must be particular to the body in question and must be pervasive. If C 
this is found then the body is a State within Article 12. On the other hand, 
. when the control is merely regulatory whether under statute or otherwise, it 
would not serve to make the body a State. [119-A, 118-F, G, H] 
Sabhajit Tewary v. Union of India, [1975] 3 SCR 616, overrnled. 
Rqiasthan Electricity Board v. Mohan Lal and Ors., [1967] 3 SCR 377; 
" Sukhdev Singh and Ors. v. Bhagatram Sardar Singh Raghuvanshi and Ors., (1975] 
3 SCR 619; Ramana v. International Airport Authority of India, (1979) SC 1628; 
Ajay Basia v. Khalid Mujib Sebravardi, (1981] l SCC 722; Som Prakash Rekhi 
v. Union of India, AIR (1981) SC 212; P.K. Ramachandra Iyer and Ors. v. Union 
D 
of India and Ors., [1984] 2 SCC 141; B.S. Minhas v. Indian Statistical Institute E 
and Ors., (1984] 1 SCR 395; CenJral Inland Water Transport Corporation ltd 
v. Brojo Nath Ganguli, AIR (1986) SC 1571; All India Sainik &hoo/s Employees' 
Association v. Defence Minister-cum-Chairman Board of Governors, Sainik 
&hoo/s Society, New Delhi and Ors., [1989] Supp. 1 SCC 205 and Mysore Paper 
~ Mills ltd v. The Mysore Paper Mills Officers Association, JT (2000) 1 SC 61, F 
relied on. 
Tekraj Vasandi alias K.S. Basandhi v. Union of India and Ors., [1988] 1 
SCC 237; Chander Mohan Khanna v. National Council of Educational research 
and Training and Ors., [1991 [ 4 SCC 578; E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu, 
[1974] 2 SCR 348; Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, [1978[ 1 SCC 248 and G 
Praga Tools Corporation v. Shri C.A. /manual and Ors., [1969) 3 SCR 773, 
· ,_ referred to. 
1.2. Normally, a precedent which has stood for a length of time should 
not be reversed, however erroneous the reasoning if it bas stood unquestioned, 
without its reasoning being distinguished' out of aU recognition by subsequent H 
102 
SUPREME COURT REPO
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.