TEKRAJ VASANDI ALIAS K.L. BASANDHI versus UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS

Citation: [1988] 2 S.C.R. 260 · Decided: 10-12-1987 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANGANATH MISRA · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 7 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
TEKRAJ VASANDI ALIAS K.L. BASANDHI 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS 
DECEMBER 10, 1987 
B 
[RANGANATH MISRA AND S. RANGANATHAN, JJ.] 
Service matter-Dismissal from service as a result of disciplinary 
action-Institute of Constitutional and Parliamentary Studies-Whe-
ther 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. 
C 
The appellant, an employee of the Institute of Constitutional and 
Parliamentary Studies (l.C.P.S., for short), was dismissed from 
service by order dated November 17, 1982, as a result of disciplinary 
action. He challenged the dismissal order by a writ petition before the 
High Court. The question whether the I.C.P.S. was a 'State' within 
the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution arose for consideration 
D as a major issue in the matter before the High Court. A Single Judge 
of the High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the employer 
was neither an agency nor an instrumentality of the government and 
did not constitute 'State' as above said, and, therefore, was not sub-
ject to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court. The appeal against that 
judgment of the Single Judge was dism.issed by the Division Bench of 
E the High Court. Aggrieved by the decision of the High Court, the 
appellant moved this Court by special leave. 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court, 
HELD: In the course of hearing, Dr. Anand Prakash, counsel 
F for the I.C.P.S., respondent No. 2, stated that whether the Institute be 
'State' or not within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, the 
employer was prepared to give a fresh opportunity to the appellant to 
meet the charges against him. With that concession, the order of dis-
missal, etc. passed against the appellant should have been set aside 
and the matter should have gone before the enquiry officer, but Dr. 
Anand Prakash as also counsel for the Union of India invited the 
G Court to decide the issue as to whether the I.C.P.S. constituted 'State' 
within the constitutional meaning of the term. l263H; 264A-C I 
The main question for consideration then was whether I.C.P.S. 
was a 'State'. I.C.P.S. could become 'State' only if it was found to be 
an authority within the territory of India or under the control of the 
H government oflndia. l264D, G] 
260 
) 
t-
TEKRAJ VASANDI v. U.O.I. 
261 
I.C.l'.S. is a registered society. The emergence of a new genera-
tion within less than two decades of independence gave rise to a feeling 
that the people's representatives in the Legislatures required the 
acquisition of the appropriate democratic bias and spirit. I.C.P.S. was 
born as a voluntary organisation to fulfil this requirement. The 
Speaker of the Lok Sabha was its first President. Three Ministers, a 
former Chief Justice of India and a former Attorney General joiaed as 
its Vice-Presidents. Some of the public officers were associated in its 
Administrative set-up. Services of some employees of Parliament were 
lent to it. While Article 12 refers to Parliament as such, a few mem-
bers of Parliament cannot be considered as Parliament so as to consti-
"-
tute that body as referred to in Article 12. The Speaker and the 
Ministers who joined as Vice-Presidents of the Society were there in 
their personal capacities and not as Ministers, etc. There were many 
people in the category of Vice-President, Executive Chairman, Trea-
surer and members, who were not a part of the Government, and 
some of them did not belong to Parliament. [28lA-F] 
The objects of the Society were not governmental business. 
Many of the objects of the Society were not confined to the two Houses 
of Parliament and were intended to have an impact on Society at 
large. [28lG-HI 
The Memorandum of the Society permitted acceptance of gifts, 
donations and subscriptions. No material was placed before the Court 
for the stand that the Society was not entitled to receive contributions 
from any indigenous source without government sanction. Since gov-
ernment money has been coming, the usual conditions attached to gov-
ernment grants have been applied and enforced. If the Society's 
affairs were really intended to be carried on as a part of the Lok 
Sabha or Parliament as such, the manner of functioning would have 
been different. The accounts of the Society are subject to audit as the 
affairs of the Societies receiving government grants are. Government 
imposes conditions and restrictions when grants are made, and the 
Society is also subject to the same, and the mere fact that suc

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