What is the central question in this case?

The core question is whether a body dominated in finance, function, and administration by the Government can be treated as a 'State' under Article 12, making writs maintainable.

Why is Sabhajit Tewary discussed here?

Because Sabhajit Tewary earlier held CSIR was not an 'authority'. This case revisits that approach to check if such bodies should fall under Article 12.

What tests help decide if a body is 'State'?

Look at formation and purpose, management control, and financial dependence. If control is pervasive and specific to the body, it points to 'State'.

Does simple regulatory control make a body 'State'?

No. Mere regulatory control, like general rules applicable to everyone, is not enough. The control must be deep and particular.

What was the outcome for writ maintainability?

Because the body was under overriding Government control, a writ could lie; the petition was maintainable.

Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani (1978) 2 SCC 424

Quick Summary

This case is important for understanding when a body counts as “State” under Article 12. The Court explains a simple idea: if the Government’s control over a body is deep and specific—financially, functionally, and administratively—then that body acts like the State. If control is only general or regulatory, it is not enough.

The discussion revisits the Sabhajit Tewary view about CSIR. It checks if such institutions, set up in national interest and run under strong Government influence, should face writs. The answer here supports writ maintainability when control is pervasive.

Issues

Is CSIR a “State” within Article 12?
Should the Supreme Court revisit/reverse the approach taken in Sabhajit Tewary?

Rules (Tests)

Look at the body as a whole and ask:

Formation, Object & Functions: Is it formed for public purposes? Does it serve national interest?

Management Control: Is there particular and pervasive Government control (e.g., top officials in leadership)?

Financial Aid: Is the funding mainly from the Government?

Regulatory vs Pervasive Control: General regulation is not enough; the control must be deep and specific.

Facts (Timeline Style)

1972: Sabhajit Tewary, a Junior Stenographer in CSIR, filed a writ under Article 32 for equal pay with newly recruited stenographers.

The claim relied on Article 14 (equality). The Supreme Court held the writ not maintainable as CSIR was not an “authority” under Article 12.

Later, employees challenged termination orders of a CSIR unit in the Calcutta High Court. Interim relief was refused because the writ itself seemed not maintainable, following Sabhajit Tewary.

The matter reached the Supreme Court by special leave. The Court examined whether bodies like CSIR should be treated as “State” due to Government’s pervasive control.

Timeline illustration of the litigation steps

Arguments

Appellant

CSIR serves national goals and public welfare; it is not a private body in substance.
Government control is pervasive: leadership, decision-making, and funding reflect the State’s overriding role.
Therefore, writs should lie; equality and public law duties must bind such bodies.

Respondent

CSIR is a registered society; it has a separate legal character.
Control is regulatory and general, not specific and deep.
Following Sabhajit Tewary, Article 12 should not cover CSIR; hence writs do not lie.

Judgment

Judgment image

The Court laid down practical tests for deciding if a body is “State” under Article 12. Focus is on real-world control: formation, purpose, management, and finance. When these show strong Government hold, the body is treated as “State”.

For CSIR, the Government had overriding control. The Council’s head position, key policy oversight, and the fact that major funds came from the Government all pointed one way.

Therefore, even though CSIR was registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, it functioned as an arm of the State. A writ was maintainable.

Ratio Decidendi

“State” under Article 12 covers bodies with pervasive and particular Government control.
Four lenses: formation & purpose, functions, management control, and financial dependence.
Mere regulation is insufficient; the control must be substantive and day-to-day in effect.
CSIR qualifies as “State”; hence writs are maintainable against it.

Why It Matters

Public bodies often use society or company forms. This ruling ensures that substance wins over form. If the State runs the show, constitutional duties and judicial review follow.

Key Takeaways

Look beyond labels; check real control.

Funding + management + purpose = strong indicators.

Mere regulation ≠ State.

Writs lie when control is pervasive and particular.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: F-F-M-F — Formation, Function, Management, Finance.

Spot the purpose: public welfare or private aim?
Scan who controls: appointments, policy, supervision.
Sum up the money trail: who pays the bills?

IRAC Outline

Issue: Is CSIR “State” under Article 12? Should Sabhajit Tewary be revisited?

Rule: Pervasive & particular Government control across formation, function, management, finance ⇒ “State”.

Application: CSIR set up for national interest; Prime Minister as ex officio President; heavy Government funding; administrative dominance.

Conclusion: CSIR is “State”; writ maintainable.

Glossary

Article 12: Defines “State” for Part III rights (includes Government and certain bodies under its control).
Writ Maintainability: Whether a writ petition can be filed against a body in constitutional courts.
Regulatory Control: General legal oversight that applies to all; not the same as deep, specific control.