Constitutional Law

Janet Jeyapaul v. SRM University

AIR 2016 SC 73; (2015) 16 SCC 530

Citation: AIR 2016 SC 73; (2015) 16 SCC 530
Court: Supreme Court of India
Date: 15 December 2015
Bench: J. Chelameswar; Abhay Manohar Sapre

Facts

Janet Jeyapaul was employed as a lecturer and later as a senior lecturer at SRM University.
SRM was a privately managed institution that had been granted the status of a “deemed university” under Section 3 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956.
Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against Janet, and her services were terminated.
She challenged the termination before the Madras High Court under Article 226.
A Single Judge entertained the petition and examined the validity of the disciplinary action.
On appeal, the Division Bench held that the writ petition was not maintainable because SRM was a private institution and was not shown to be “State” under Article 12.
The principal question before the Supreme Court was therefore whether a writ could be issued against the deemed university even without declaring it State under Article 12.

Issue

Whether SRM University was amenable to the High Court’s writ jurisdiction under Article 226.
Whether a body must necessarily be “State” under Article 12 before a writ can be issued against it.
Whether providing higher education is a public function.
Whether the termination dispute should be considered on merits.

Rule

The scope of Article 226 is wider than Article 32.
Article 32 ordinarily concerns enforcement of fundamental rights against the State.
Article 226 authorises High Courts to issue writs to “any person or authority” for:
enforcement of fundamental rights; and
enforcement of other legal rights.
A private body may be subject to a writ where:
the source of its power has a statutory connection; or
the nature of the function performed is public.
The body need not necessarily satisfy the complete Article 12 instrumentality test.
Education, particularly university education leading to recognised qualifications, is a function of substantial public importance.

Application

The Supreme Court held that the Division Bench had asked the wrong constitutional question.
It focused almost entirely on whether SRM was “State” under Article 12.
However, Janet had approached the High Court under Article 226, not the Supreme Court under Article 32.
The proper question was whether SRM performed a public duty that could be controlled through writ jurisdiction.
SRM had been declared a deemed university under the UGC Act.
Its authority to award recognised degrees and function as a university arose from this statutory framework.
It was subject to standards and supervision imposed by the University Grants Commission.
Its educational activities therefore had consequences far beyond an ordinary private contract.
Students, teachers and the public relied upon its statutory recognition and its ability to provide recognised higher education.
The Court described the provision of education as a public function.
A private management structure could not by itself remove the institution from Article 226 where the institution exercised powers and performed duties having a public character.
The Court relied on the broader principle that writ jurisdiction follows the nature of the duty rather than merely the formal identity of the body.
It therefore distinguished between:
the stricter Article 12 inquiry into whether the institution is State; and
the broader Article 226 inquiry into whether it performs a public duty.
The Supreme Court did not itself decide whether Janet’s termination was substantively valid.
It held only that the High Court had jurisdiction to hear the challenge.
Since the Division Bench had dismissed the matter solely on maintainability, the case had to be returned for examination of the merits.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court held that a writ petition under Article 226 was maintainable against SRM University.
A deemed university performs the public function of providing higher education under a statutory framework.
It was unnecessary to first establish that SRM was “State” under Article 12.
The Division Bench’s order dismissing the petition as non-maintainable was set aside.
The matter was remanded to the Division Bench of the High Court to decide the legality of the termination on merits.