Gujarat High Court: Regulatory Provisions Ensuring Activities Carried Out In Consensus With State Guidelines Don’t Alone Make An Agency A 'State' U/A 12 Constitution
The Gujarat High Court clarified that merely because the Institute was under the authority of the Department of Atomic Energy, it could not become a State.
The Gujarat High Court held that regulatory provisions ensuring activities carried out in consensus with state guidelines alone do not make an agency a 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution
The Court held that the Institute for Plasma Research (Institute),is not a ‘state’ within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution as it is purely an “academic and research” institute set up as an autonomous research and development organisation. The Court clarified that merely because the Institute was under the authority of the Department of Atomic Energy, it could not become a State.
A Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Biren Vaishnav and Justice Hemant M Prachchhak held, “The institute is largely involved in theoretical and experimental studies in plasma science including basic plasma physics which is a scientific and research activity which cannot be termed to be fundamental to the governance of the country and certainly therefore, the Institute cannot be a “State” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. We are, therefore of the opinion that the learned Single Judge committed no error in dismissing the petition.”
Senior Advocate Shalin Mehta appeared for the Appellant, while Advocates DG Shukla represented the Respondents.
Brief Facts
The Appellant, who had previously challenged his removal from service, argued that the Institute was a ‘State’ due to the control exercised over it by the Department of Atomic Energy, Government of India. The Appellant cited the Institute's Bye-laws, asserting that the Institute was an aided institution under the Department of Atomic Energy, with the Government of India having administrative and financial control.
Court’s Reasoning
The High Court held, “Merely regulatory provisions which ensure that the activities are carried out in consensus with the guidelines provided by the State, would not make an agency a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India.”
“Merely because the composition is of the Government of India is mainly dominated by officers of the Department of Atomic Energy, that itself will not make it a body over which it cannot be said to be the State’s pervasive functional control, much less, administrative control,” the Bench remarked.
The Court explained that “what we find from the affidavit-in-reply filed by the Institute as well as the Union of India, is that the Institute of Plasma Research was initially a part of the Physical Research Laboratory dealing in experimental studies in plasma physics. It was an institute setup and recognized for its contributions to fundamental and applied research in plasma physics and associated technologies. It was an experimental program supported by the Department of Science & Technology. True it is that the institute is a research and development organization under the authority of Department of Atomic Energy, but that itself would not make the institute a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution.”
Consequently, the Court ordered, “Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. In view of disposal of the main appeal, the civil application will not survive and stands disposed of, accordingly.”
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Appeal.
Cause Title: Himanshu Dineshchandra Parekh v. Institute For Plasma Research & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:GUJHC:20200-DB)
Appearance:
Appellant: Senior Advocate Shalin Mehta; Advocate Aditi S Raol
Respondents: Advocates DG Shukla, Meshwa Bhatt and Vyoma K Jhaveri