• Sign In/Sign Up
  • Menu
  • +Clients Back

    • Get Free Legal Answers
    • Get Fee Estimates
    • Find Lawyers
  • +Lawyers

    • Case Diary & Office Manager
    • Post News & Artilces
    • Post Jobs & Internships
  • +Law Students

    • Campus Ambassadors
    • Find Jobs & Internships
    • Post News & Articles
    • Resource Sharing
  • +Law Schools

    • Post Admissions
    • Post Opportunities
    • Get Law School Rating

  • Home
  • News/Articles
  • University as a State for the purpose of Article 12: Dr. Janet Jeyapaul v. SRM University & Ors. (2015)

Latest News

Back

University as a State for the purpose of Article 12: Dr. Janet Jeyapaul v. SRM University & Ors. (2015)

Courtesy/By: Ashwin Satheesh  |  18 Nov 2020     Views:6146

Whether a "Deemed University" that imparts education can be considered as a "State" against whom writ jurisdiction may be exercised.

Citation: (2015) 16 SCC 530.

Date of judgment: 15/12/2015

Introduction:

Part III of the Constitution confers fundamental rights to individuals that are integral and cannot be taken away by any State action. Nonetheless, these rights come with a catch, i.e., they can be availed only against a State and not private individuals. [1] For the purposes of Part III, the term “State” has been defined under Article 12 and includes the Central Government, Parliament, State legislature, all local and other authorities.

The Apex court has established various tests to determine which institutions can be treated as a “State” under the ambit of “other authorities” but there is no straitjacket formula that can be relied upon. [2] The predominant one being the Instrumentality Test established under R.D. Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India (AIR 1979 SC 1628) and reiterated in Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib (AIR 1981 SC 487). The scope of institutions under the gamut of other authorities has expanded ever since, with institutions such as co-operative societies, transport corporations, nationalized banks, etc being considered as states against whom fundamental rights are available.

Facts:

The appellant, Dr. Janet Jeyapaul, was a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Biotechnology at SRM University (respondent). A series of memos and counter-replies was in motion as the respondents alleged that the appellant had failed to take classes for two batches. Later on, the respondent constituted an Enquiry Committee that communicated that the action was based on several complaints made against her by her students. However, the appellant was not given a reference to any of those documents or complaints. She was subsequently served with a notice dated 04/04/2012 informing her that the following month would be her one-month notice period and she would be terminated on 04/05/2012. The appellant contested that the said notice was received by her only on 16/04/2012. 

A petition was filed under Article 226 before a Single Judge of the Madras High Court which ruled in her favor by ordered her reinstating. The University in turn filed an appeal before a Division Bench of the Madras High Court against the said order. The Division Bench by its order dated 04/07/2013 reversed the order as it held that the respondent was not a State under Article 12, and thus could not be subject to writ jurisdiction under Article 226. However, there was no decision made as to the merits of the case.

The present case before the Supreme Court was a Special Leave Petition against the decision of the Division bench that viewed the University to not be a State for the purpose of Article 12.

 

Judgment:

The learned judges sought the assistance of Mr. Harish Salve as the matter involved a legal question whereas the appellant had no legal representative. Through his submissions, he expressed that the determining factor would be the object of the institution and the activities it performs in furtherance of that object. The general trend of the Courts was to decide based on whether the institution/body performed a public function or duty so as to affix public character.

It was highlighted that the phrase “any person or authority” under Article 226 was broad enough to encompass any person or a body performing a public function or a duty. The emphasis would thus lay on the nature of duty performed by that authority and not its form per se.

The respondent was engaged in the public function of imparting education to students and the same was contended to be subject to the jurisdiction of Article 226 in light of the established precedents. The respondent was a “Deemed University” and thus governed by the University Grants Commission. The respondent University contended that if the Court viewed them as a State, then all parties related to the respondents would start invoking writ jurisdiction against them.

The Court relied on the Amenability Test propounded by De Smith (Judicial Review, 7th Edition), which incorporated the complementary principles of - source of power and characteristics of functions. The Supreme Court while previously considering the status of a trust that received governmental aid and imparted education, held that the function was public in nature. [3] Mandamus could not be issued if the rights and duties were of a private nature. However, the trust derived its funds from the government and was regulated by its affiliating University who supervised its activities. Decisions of the University would be binding upon the Educational Trust and such a relationship could not be seen as private in character. The judgment also added that the term “authority” under Article 226 would have to be construed liberally as compared to the term under Article 12 as it entailed both fundamental and non-fundamental rights.

The essential ingredient would be the nature of the duty and the positive obligation it imposes and not the form by which it has been imposed. Reference was then made to the ratio in Zee Telefilms Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., (2005) 4 SCC 649, which considered the status of BCCI as a state. Despite holding the answer in negative, the court held that an aggrieved party could always take the recourse of other remedies of law or the jurisdiction under Article 226 which is much wider than the power under Article 32.

It was thus held that the Division Bench of the High Court was erred in its opinion by holding that the respondent could not be subject to the jurisdiction of Article 226. The respondent was a “Deemed University” according to Section 3 of the UGC. This meant that the UGC’s decisions would be binding upon the respondent and that it would govern its functioning. The Court held that once an institution is declared a “Deemed University” it would be an authority under Article 12 as it carried out a public function of imparting education. Thus, the institution will be subject to the writ jurisdiction of High Courts under Article 226.

The respondent relied on the T.M.A. Pai Foundation & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors., (2002) 8 SCC 481, to hold that even if it was maintainable, it should not be heard on merits and instead be redirected to a District Judge. The Court acknowledged the same but decided against it as the Single Judge bench had entertained the petition. The issue was hence remanded to the Division bench of the Madras High Court to be decided on merits.

The Division Bench of the Supreme Court expressly held that it merely answered the question as to the maintainability of the petition and did not delve into the merits. The respondent University performed a public function by imparting education and being governed by the UGC resulted in it being another authority against whom fundamental rights and writs were exercisable. Interpretation of the term “other authorities” has undergone a fundamental shift as it has strayed away from the erstwhile application of ejusdem generis to a more progressive one that relies on the type of function and the level of governmental control.

 

[1] Sabeeha Faikage v. Union of India, AIR 2013 SC 189.

[2] Tekraj v. Union of India, AIR 1988 SC 469.

[3] Andi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust & Ors. v. V.R. Rudani & Ors., (1989) 2 SCC 691.


Document:


Courtesy/By: Ashwin Satheesh  |  18 Nov 2020     Views:6146

News Updates

The Legal Framework of Bail Conditions in India: B...
25 Oct 2024     Views:5318
Changing an Arbitrator Mid-Proceeding: Legal Frame...
23 Oct 2024     Views:4753
IMF Retains India's FY25 GDP Growth Forecast at 7%...
22 Oct 2024     Views:4738
The Evolving Landscape of Russian Anti-Suit Injunc...
22 Oct 2024     Views:4525
Hyundai’s IPO vs Competitors: How the Auto Giant...
15 Oct 2024     Views:4555
The Validity of Arbitration Agreements Post Decree...
14 Oct 2024     Views:4210
SEBI Issues Checklist for AIFs, Their Managers, an...
08 Oct 2024     Views:4579
The Siemens v. Russian Railroads Case...
07 Oct 2024     Views:4574
Empowering Minds in Confinement: Bombay HC’s Lan...
03 Oct 2024     Views:4689
The Dynamics of Novation in Contract Law and Its I...
02 Oct 2024     Views:4869
SEBI Establishes Consistent Evaluation Standards f...
01 Oct 2024     Views:4578
Landmark Decision by Austrian Supreme Court on Arb...
30 Sep 2024     Views:4555
Key Considerations for Indian Commercial Claims...
25 Sep 2024     Views:4509
Boom or Bust: Africa’s Oil Giants Face Declining...
23 Sep 2024     Views:4625
The Growing Role of Arbitration in Intellectual Pr...
23 Sep 2024     Views:4586
Supreme Court Greenlights Sub-Classification of SC...
20 Sep 2024     Views:4902
SEBI's Employee Grievances Prompt Formation of Wor...
19 Sep 2024     Views:4736
Environmental Law in India: Challenges and Opportu...
18 Sep 2024     Views:5562
Navigating the New Legal Landscape of Exclusive Ju...
16 Sep 2024     Views:4698
The Anatomy of Joint Venture Breakups in India (an...
31 Jul 2024     Views:5041
The Integration of ESG in India's M&A Landscape...
31 Jul 2024     Views:4943
Future of AI in Legal Systems and Conflict Resolut...
21 Jul 2024     Views:5133
World Health Assembly Revises International Health...
21 Jul 2024     Views:4988
Pokemon GO Fans Concerned Over Restrictive New Ter...
21 Jul 2024     Views:5106
Landmark Judgment on Setting Aside Arbitration Awa...
21 Jul 2024     Views:4891
Understanding the Process of Issuing Summons in In...
11 Jul 2023     Views:8254
Understanding the Unlawful Activities (Prevention)...
10 Jul 2023     Views:6821
Understanding the Mental Health Act in India: A St...
09 Jul 2023     Views:6859
Combating Manual Scavenging in India: A Call for S...
07 Jul 2023     Views:6659
Impleadment in Supreme Court of India: A Comprehen...
05 Jul 2023     Views:7612
Unraveling the Distinction: Culpable Homicide vs. ...
03 Jul 2023     Views:6957
Understanding the Difference between Money Bills a...
02 Jul 2023     Views:5500
Understanding the Civil Procedure Code in India: A...
01 Jul 2023     Views:6273
The Rights of Criminals in India: Upholding Justic...
30 Jun 2023     Views:5537
Exploring the Differences between the US and India...
29 Jun 2023     Views:5545
What to Do If the Police Refuse to Register Your F...
26 Jun 2023     Views:5791
Timeline of Environmental Protocols: A Global Effo...
25 Jun 2023     Views:5489
How to Deal with Cheque Bounce Cases in India...
24 Jun 2023     Views:5471
Pursuing a Lucrative Litigation Career in Indian L...
22 Jun 2023     Views:5522
Understanding the Emergency Provisions of India: S...
21 Jun 2023     Views:5486
Environment Legislation in India: A Comprehensive ...
20 Jun 2023     Views:5842
Understanding the Emergency Powers of the Constitu...
18 Jun 2023     Views:5348
Understanding the Emergency Powers of the Constitu...
17 Jun 2023     Views:5370
Timeline of Same-Sex Laws in India: A Journey Towa...
16 Jun 2023     Views:5815
Sir Creek Dispute and Legal Implications...
15 Jun 2023     Views:6011
Jurisprudence of NDPS Laws in India: A Comprehensi...
14 Jun 2023     Views:5592
Impleadment Proceedings: A Comprehensive Guide to ...
13 Jun 2023     Views:6027
Understanding Continuing Mandamus: A Powerful Judi...
12 Jun 2023     Views:7987
Res Judicata: The Doctrine of Finality in Legal Pr...
10 Jun 2023     Views:6024
Mastering the Art of Legal Drafting: A Comprehensi...
08 Jun 2023     Views:5689
Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CP...
07 Jun 2023     Views:11317
Understanding the Laws of War: Protecting Humanity...
03 Jun 2023     Views:5413
Understanding the Code of Criminal Procedure (CRPC...
02 Jun 2023     Views:6259
The National Drug and Psychotropic Substances (NDP...
01 Jun 2023     Views:5837
A Step-by-Step Guide: How to File an FIR in India...
31 May 2023     Views:5537
Zero FIR: An Effective Tool for Prompt Criminal Ju...
30 May 2023     Views:5774
Unveiling the Dissent of Judges in Judicial Judgme...
28 May 2023     Views:5419
Environmental Laws in India: Safeguarding Nature f...
25 May 2023     Views:5866
The Recusal of Supreme Court of India Judges from ...
24 May 2023     Views:5539
Understanding the Jurisdiction of the Supreme Cour...
23 May 2023     Views:5989
Article 142 of the Constitution of India: A Compre...
22 May 2023     Views:6194
Landmark Judgments in Arbitration Law in India: A...
21 May 2023     Views:6423
Landmark Cases on Anticipatory Bail in India: A Pa...
20 May 2023     Views:10318
Embracing the Future: How AI is Revolutionizing th...
18 May 2023     Views:5641
Understanding Narcotics Laws in India: A Comprehen...
17 May 2023     Views:5505
Understanding Indian Laws on Cross-Border Transact...
16 May 2023     Views:6626
ADR mechanism of legal adjudication in India...
15 May 2023     Views:5351
Validity of foreign arbitral award in India throug...
14 May 2023     Views:5366
Scope of Section 151 CPC...
13 May 2023     Views:6944
Detailed Overview on Section 482 of Crpc...
11 May 2023     Views:5890
Scope of Decree under CPC...
10 May 2023     Views:5452
Legal development of Arbitration Laws in India....
09 May 2023     Views:5494
Arbitration Laws in India...
07 May 2023     Views:5434
Impact of COVID-19 on Legal Industry...
06 May 2023     Views:7539
Chargesheet not having authority's valid sanction ...
02 May 2023     Views:5711
Same-Sex Marriage in India...
30 Apr 2023     Views:5359
National Commission for Women...
27 Apr 2023     Views:5210
Law making process of India....
26 Apr 2023     Views:6295
Bail Provisions in India...
25 Apr 2023     Views:5237
Life imprisonment in Criminal Law in India...
24 Apr 2023     Views:5649
Contempt of Court...
23 Apr 2023     Views:5492
The collegium system of Judiciary in India....
22 Apr 2023     Views:5178
Remarriage before Expiry of Limitation Period to f...
21 Apr 2023     Views:5178
Need for strict measure of NDPS laws in India....
20 Apr 2023     Views:5333
Nature of Offence under Section 138 of NI Act is Q...
19 Apr 2023     Views:7763
Order VII Rule 11 CPC: Plaint cannot be rejected m...
18 Apr 2023     Views:6371
Mediation: At the Dawn of Golden Age organized at ...
16 Apr 2023     Views:5459
Central Government's motto should be mediate, not ...
15 Apr 2023     Views:5170
Ambedkar Jayanti Celebrations...
14 Apr 2023     Views:5377
Supreme Court of India calls for Preventive Measur...
12 Apr 2023     Views:4947
Pursuing LL.M is not break in Law Practice, Rules ...
11 Apr 2023     Views:5160
Law should take into consideration realities of co...
10 Apr 2023     Views:4997
Delhi High Court said that peeping into public bat...
08 Apr 2023     Views:5590
Delhi High Court denies bails to AAP's Satyendra J...
06 Apr 2023     Views:5714
Supreme Court’s Triple Talaq Judgement Would App...
30 Jan 2023     Views:5443
Article 311(1) | An Order of Removal From Service ...
26 Jan 2023     Views:5923
Leaders shouldn't disrespect the President or Pri...
17 Jan 2023     Views:5227
New bench will hear Ashwini Upadhyay's Supreme Cou...
15 Jan 2023     Views:5363
Person Who Drove Rashly with the Knowledge that it...
12 Jan 2023     Views:5947
The rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act cannot b...
11 Jan 2023     Views:5689
FIND A LAWYER




FIND A LAW SCHOOL



Most Read News Articles

  • Sabrimala Verdict (28 sept 2018) - A End of Taboo.
    On 07 Oct 2020    Views:95677
  • Case Analysis: Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum vs Union of India
    On 11 Dec 2020    Views:73235
  • Case Analysis: THE BERUBARI UNION CASE
    On 14 Dec 2020    Views:70654
  • DOCTRINE OF ELECTION UNDER TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT, 1882
    On 08 Jul 2020    Views:69793
  • A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950 AIR 27, 1950 SCR 88)
    On 08 Nov 2020    Views:59148
View all >>

Propertified Propertified Propertified Propertified Propertified Propertified Propertified Propertified Propertified

86540

Lawyers Network

103860

Users

630

Cities Serving

114

Law Schools Network

59824

Law Students Network

About us

  • Company Profile

Indian Major Laws

  • Indian Constitution
  • IPC
  • CrPC
  • CPC
  • Companies Act
  • Indian Evidence Act
  • CGST Act
  • Limitation Act

Policies

  • Terms of Use
  • Privacy Policy
  • Refund & Cancellation

    Ads & Media

  • Resource Sharing
  • Advertiser(Sign Up/Login)
  • Media

    Careers

  • Internships
  • Jobs
  • Student Journalists

    HELP & SUPPORT

  • Contact Us
  • Grievances
  • Test

News

  • Legal News
  • Post Article
  • Post Interview

Legal Library

  • Central Acts
  • Deeds Drafts [1128 ]
  • Legal Maxims

Connect

Lawsisto Direct

 

  •  
  •  
DISCLAIMER
Copyright © Lawsisto Private Limited. All rights reserved.
Unless otherwise indicated, all materials on these pages are copyrighted by Lawsisto Private Limited. All rights reserved. No part of these pages, either text or image may
be used for any purpose. By continuing past this page, you agree to our Terms of Service, Cookie Policy, Privacy Policy and Content Policies.