Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi
Supreme Court of India · 13 November 1980 · 5 judges · 1981 AIR 487; 1981 SCR (2) 79; 1981 SCC (1) 722
A society registered under a Societies Registration Act that is an instrumentality or agency of Government is 'State' under Article 12; allotting one-third of the marks to a brief viva voce made admissions arbitrary under Article 14.
Facts
The Regional Engineering College, Srinagar, sponsored by the Government of India, was run by a society registered under the Jammu and Kashmir Registration of Societies Act, 1898. For 1979-80, admission of Jammu and Kashmir candidates was based on a written test of 100 marks and a viva voce of 50 marks. The petitioners, who had good marks in the qualifying examination, were not admitted because they received low viva voce marks, while candidates with lower marks in the qualifying examination and written test were admitted on very high interview marks. They alleged that each interview lasted only two or three minutes and asked only about parentage and residence. They challenged the admissions under Article 32. The respondents objected that the society was not an 'authority' under Article 12, so no writ petition lay against it.
Questions before the Court
- Is a society registered under a Societies Registration Act, which runs a Government-sponsored college, an 'authority' and so 'State' under Article 12?
- Is selection for admission by viva voce in addition to a written test arbitrary under Article 14?
- Did allocating 50 out of 150 marks to the viva voce, and holding interviews of two or three minutes, make the admissions arbitrary?
What the Court held
- A corporation that is an instrumentality or agency of Government is an 'authority' under Article 12 and bound by Fundamental Rights. It is immaterial whether it is created by or under a statute; a statutory corporation, Government company, company under the Companies Act or registered society may qualify. The question is why it was brought into existence, not how.
- The tests from the International Airport Authority case (share capital, financial assistance, monopoly status, deep and pervasive State control, public functions, transfer of a Government department) are indicative, not conclusive. On its Memorandum and Rules, the Society was a projection of the State and Central Governments and an 'authority'.
- Article 14 strikes at arbitrariness in State action; the classification doctrine is only a judicial formula for finding arbitrariness. Being 'State' for Part III does not make an entity 'State' for Articles 309 to 311.
- The oral interview, though imperfect, is not in itself arbitrary as an additional test. Allocating 33 1/3 per cent of total marks to it was arbitrary, and more than 15 per cent would be arbitrary in existing circumstances. Interviews of two or three minutes with irrelevant questions vitiate the test.
- Because about 18 months had passed and mala fides was not proved, the 1979-80 selections were not set aside. On the respondents' agreement, the best fifty unsuccessful applicants were to be admitted in 1981-82 as additional seats, and the petitions were otherwise dismissed.
Why it matters
The Court held that a society or company, and not only a statutory corporation, can be 'State' under Article 12 if it is an instrumentality or agency of Government, and summarised the indicative tests for deciding this. It read Sabhajit Tewary as not barring registered societies. It restated that Article 14 strikes at arbitrariness, and limited the weight that interviews may carry in admissions, suggesting 15 per cent as the ceiling and tape-recording of interviews.
In the Court's words
Copied from the official judgment; each passage links to its page.
“We are clearly of the view that where a corporation is an instrumentality or agency of the government, it must be held to be an ’authority’ within the meaning of Art. 12 and hence subject to the same basic obligation to obey the Fundamental Rights as the government.”
“We may point out that it is immaterial for this purpose whether the corporation is created by a statute or under a statute. The test is whether it is an instrumentality or agency of the Government and not as to how it is created. The inquiry has to be not as to how the juristic person is born but why it has been brought into existence.”
“It must therefore now be taken to be well settled that what Article 14 strikes at is arbitrariness because any action that is arbitrary, must necessarily involve negation of equality. The doctrine of classification which is evolved by the courts is not para-phrase of Article 14 nor is it the objective and end of that Article. It is merely a judicial formula for determining whether the legislative or executive action in question is arbitrary and therefore constituting denial of equality.”
“We are of the view that, under the existing circumstances, allocation of more than 15% of the total marks for the oral interview would be arbitrary and unreasonable and would be liable to be struck down as constitutionally invalid.”
Provisions interpreted
Related judgments
- Follows E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu (1973)“It was for the first time in E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu that this Court laid bare a new dimension of Article 14” (page 20)
- Follows Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)“it was reaffirmed and elaborated by this Court in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India” (page 20)
- Explained in Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology (2002)
Case and bench
- Parties
- Ajay Hasia etc. v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi etc.
- Case
- Writ Petition Nos. 1304, 1262, 1119 and others of 1979 (Original Jurisdiction, under Article 32)
- Decided
- 13 November 1980
- Bench
- Bhagwati, P.N., Chandrachud, Y.V. (CJ), Krishnaiyer, V.R., Fazalali, Syed Murtaza, Koshal, A.D.
- Opinions
- Unanimous. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Bhagwati, J.
Questions on this case
2 questions in live Law Maker papers mention this case. Practise them with the landmark judgments questions.