Judgement Briefs

Constitutional Law

Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi

AIR 1981 SC 487; (1981) 1 SCC 722

Citation
AIR 1981 SC 487; (1981) 1 SCC 722
Court
Supreme Court of India
Date
13 November 1980
Bench
Y.V. Chandrachud C.J.; V.R. Krishna Iyer; P.N. Bhagwati; S. Murtaza Fazal Ali; A.D. Koshal

Facts

  • The Regional Engineering College at Srinagar was managed by a society registered under the Jammu and Kashmir Registration of Societies Act.
  • The society had been established with the involvement of the Central Government and the Government of Jammu and Kashmir.
  • Admissions to the engineering course were based on:
  • a written examination carrying 100 marks; and
  • an oral interview carrying 50 marks.
  • The oral interview therefore constituted approximately one-third of the total marks.
  • Several candidates alleged that:
  • interviews lasted only two or three minutes;
  • irrelevant questions were asked;
  • excessive marks were assigned to the interview; and
  • the process enabled favouritism and arbitrary selection.
  • Before examining the admission process, the Court had to decide whether the society managing the college was “State” under Article 12.

Issue

  • Whether a society registered under ordinary legislation could be “State” under Article 12.
  • What tests determine whether a body is an instrumentality or agency of government.
  • Whether assigning 50 marks out of 150 to an oral interview was arbitrary under Article 14.
  • What relief should be granted when the admission process was constitutionally defective.

Rule

  • The legal form of a body is not decisive under Article 12.
  • A government instrumentality may be created as:
  • a statutory corporation;
  • a government company;
  • a registered society; or
  • another separate juristic entity.
  • The Court identified six important indicators:
  • the entire share capital is held by government;
  • government provides almost the whole financial assistance;
  • the body enjoys a State-conferred or State-protected monopoly;
  • there is deep and pervasive governmental control;
  • its functions are of public importance and closely related to governmental functions; and
  • a government department has been transferred to the body.
  • These factors are indicators, not rigid conditions.
  • Article 14 prohibits arbitrariness because arbitrary State action is inherently unequal.

Application

  • The Court held that constitutional accountability could not depend upon the device used to create an institution.
  • Otherwise, government could avoid fundamental rights simply by forming a society instead of establishing a statutory department.
  • The college society received almost its entire funding from the Central and State Governments.
  • Its governing body included government representatives.
  • Government approval was required for important financial and administrative decisions.
  • Government exercised extensive control over:
  • appointments;
  • expenditure;
  • policies;
  • admissions; and
  • the institution’s functioning.
  • The society was therefore only the formal vehicle through which government operated the engineering college.
  • It was an instrumentality of the State and subject to Article 14.
  • On admissions, the Court accepted that oral interviews may assess qualities that written examinations cannot measure.
  • However, an interview cannot be allowed to dominate the entire selection process.
  • Awarding one-third of the total marks to a brief and largely subjective interview created an excessive possibility of manipulation.
  • Interviews of two or three minutes could not reliably assess personality, aptitude or suitability.
  • The Court considered the high allocation of marks arbitrary, especially because candidates’ written performance could be substantially displaced by interview marks.
  • It suggested that ordinarily oral interview marks should not exceed approximately 15 per cent of the total in such admissions.
  • However, the Court did not cancel all admissions.
  • Students had already completed a significant part of the academic session, and removing them would cause serious hardship.
  • Instead, it directed the institution to admit fifty additional candidates according to merit from among those wrongly excluded.

Conclusion

  • The registered society managing the Regional Engineering College was “State” under Article 12.
  • The manner in which a body is created is less important than its financial, functional and administrative relationship with government.
  • Article 14 prohibits arbitrary State action and is not confined to traditional discriminatory classification.
  • Giving 50 out of 150 marks to the oral interview was arbitrary and constitutionally invalid.
  • Existing admissions were not cancelled because of the passage of time and potential hardship.