What was the main issue in Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology?

The main issue was whether the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), a registered society running national research institutes, should be treated as State under Article 12 of the Indian Constitution, so that fundamental rights could be enforced against it by way of writs.

Did the Court overrule Sabhajit Tewary in this judgment?

Yes. The Constitution Bench overruled the earlier decision in Sabhajit Tewary, where CSIR had been held not to be State. The Court found that the earlier approach was too narrow and did not correctly apply the test of pervasive governmental control.

What test did the Court use to decide whether a body is State under Article 12?

The majority applied the deep and pervasive control test. If the Government controls an organisation in a financial, functional and administrative sense, and that control shapes key decisions and policies, the body will be treated as State under Article 12.

Why is this case important for Constitutional Law students?

This case is a landmark for understanding the scope of the word State in Article 12. It explains when societies, public sector bodies or research organisations can be brought within the reach of fundamental rights, especially for equality claims under Article 14.

Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology (2002)

Q: How did the Supreme Court treat CSIR under Article 12 in this case?

The Supreme Court held, by a 5:2 majority, that CSIR is State under Article 12 because the Union Government exercises deep and pervasive financial, functional and administrative control over it, going far beyond ordinary regulatory supervision.

Landmark Supreme Court decision on whether CSIR is “State” under Article 12, and how deep and pervasive government control brings a body within the reach of fundamental rights.

Supreme Court of India · 7-Judge Constitution Bench

Year: 2002 · PUBLISH_DATE: 09 December 2025

AUTHOR_NAME: Gulzar Hashmi · LOCATION: India

Citation: (2002) 5 SCC 111 · ~10 min read

CASE_TITLE: Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology PRIMARY_KEYWORDS: Article 12 State, CSIR as State, deep and pervasive control SECONDARY_KEYWORDS: Sabhajit Tewary, “other authorities”, Constitutional law exam

Quick Summary

This case explains when a body like the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) is treated as “State” under Article 12 of the Constitution. If a body is treated as State, people can directly file a writ petition for violation of fundamental rights, such as equality under Article 14.

The Supreme Court looked again at an old decision in Sabhajit Tewary v. Union of India, where CSIR was earlier held not to be State. In Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology, a larger 7-Judge Bench carefully studied how the Union Government controls CSIR – money, decisions, staff, and policies. The majority finally held that CSIR is State under Article 12 and overruled Sabhajit Tewary.

For students, the case is a turning point on the meaning of “other authorities” under Article 12 and clarifies the deep and pervasive control test.

Issues Before the Court

Whether the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), a registered society running research institutes like the Indian Institute of Chemical Biology, is “State” or “other authority” under Article 12 of the Constitution.
If CSIR is State, whether employees can challenge service decisions (for example, termination or unequal pay) by filing writ petitions for violation of fundamental rights.
Whether the earlier decision in Sabhajit Tewary v. Union of India, holding that CSIR is not State, was correctly decided or should now be overruled.

Rules / Legal Tests Applied

The Court, speaking mainly through Justice Ruma Pal for the majority, used the idea of deep and pervasive governmental control to decide if CSIR falls within Article 12.

If the Government controls a body in financial, functional and administrative matters, and that control shapes the real decisions of the body, it is likely to be “State”.
If the Government only regulates a body in a general way (like any other private actor), then that body is usually not State.
The Court did not make one fixed checklist, but looked at the overall picture: how the body was created, who funds it, who appoints its leaders, and who finally decides its policies.

In simple words: the more the Government runs the show, the more likely it is that the body will be treated as State under Article 12.

Facts – Timeline Style

Timeline illustration for the events in the case

Early background – CSIR & research institutes

CSIR was set up as a society to promote industrial research in India. Many government research activities earlier done in a department were moved into CSIR. It ran several labs, including the Indian Institute of Chemical Biology.

1972 – Sabhajit Tewary’s writ petition

A junior stenographer, Sabhajit Tewary, filed a writ in the Supreme Court claiming equal pay and allowances with newly appointed stenographers under Article 14. The Court rejected the petition, holding that CSIR was not State under Article 12. So, a writ was not maintainable against CSIR.

Later – Fresh challenges in High Courts

In later cases, including one from the Calcutta High Court, employees again challenged service decisions of CSIR units. The High Court dismissed writs by simply following the earlier Sabhajit Tewary ruling.

Reference to a larger Bench

When the matter came again before a smaller Bench of the Supreme Court, the judges felt that the question needed a fresh and deeper look. They doubted whether the old view on CSIR was correct and referred the matter to a 7-Judge Constitution Bench.

Constitution Bench hearing

The 7-Judge Bench examined the structure of CSIR, the nature of Government control and its role in national research. Both sides argued about whether CSIR’s relationship with the Union Government was strong enough to make it State under Article 12.

Arguments – Appellant vs Respondent

Appellant (Employee side)

CSIR is effectively a government body. It was created at the initiative of the Government to carry out national research functions earlier done in a government department.
CSIR receives a large part of its funds from the Union Government (around 70%). Budgets, projects and major expenditures need Government approval.
The Prime Minister is the ex officio President of CSIR. Key members of the governing body are nominated and can be removed by the Government. Service conditions of employees require Government approval.
Because the control is deep and practical, and CSIR works for public purposes, it should be treated as State under Article 12. Employees must be allowed to enforce fundamental rights against it.

Respondent (CSIR / Institute side)

CSIR is a registered society, not a statutory corporation. It is not created directly by an Act of Parliament and does not have law-making or coercive powers.
Government funding by itself does not convert a society into State. Other sources of income also exist through projects, consultancy and research services.
The governing body includes independent experts and eminent persons, not only Government officials. Scientific research is not a core sovereign function; private bodies can also perform such work.
Therefore, the earlier decision in Sabhajit Tewary was correct and should not be disturbed. CSIR should remain outside the definition of State in Article 12.

Judgment – Majority and Dissent

Majority Opinion (Justice Ruma Pal and others)

The majority held that CSIR is State under Article 12. Looking at the complete picture, the Court saw that the Union Government had deep and pervasive control over CSIR:

CSIR was set up at the initiative of the Government to carry out public research functions earlier done by a government department.
Most of its funds came from Government grants. Financial decisions and budgets depended heavily on Government approval.
The Prime Minister was the ex officio President. The Government nominated and could remove members of the governing body.
Important service matters of employees, including pay and conditions, could not be changed without Government consent.

The Court stressed that the control was not just regulatory or at arm’s length. It was real, continuous and touched all important aspects of CSIR’s work. Therefore, CSIR was held to be an “authority” and hence State for Article 12 purposes.

The majority also clearly overruled Sabhajit Tewary, stating that the earlier decision had taken too narrow a view of Article 12.

Dissenting Opinion (Justice R.C. Lahoti and Justice Doraiswamy Raju)

The dissenting judges disagreed. In their view:

A body should usually be called “other authority” only when it is a statutory creation or is given legal powers similar to those of the State.
CSIR, as a registered society, had no power to make binding rules on the public. Its research functions were not inherently sovereign and could be done by private organisations.
Government funding and some level of supervision were not enough to treat CSIR as State. Autonomy in research and management still existed.

For the dissent, CSIR did not cross the threshold required to be treated as State under Article 12. However, the majority view became the law.

Ratio Decidendi (Core Legal Principle)

The core principle from this judgment is: When the Government exercises deep and pervasive financial, functional and administrative control over a body, that body is an “authority” and therefore “State” under Article 12.

In exam language: CSIR was treated as an “instrumentality or agency” of the State because the Government controlled its funds, policies, governing body and employees. This goes beyond normal regulation and makes the organisation answerable for fundamental rights violations.

Why This Case Matters

Clarifies Article 12: The case expands and clarifies the meaning of “other authorities” under Article 12 and builds on earlier rulings like Ajay Hasia.
Overrules Sabhajit Tewary: It corrects the earlier narrow view that had kept CSIR out of Article 12, making the law more consistent with the reality of government control.
Protects employees and citizens: Employees of bodies like CSIR can now approach the Supreme Court or High Courts through writs when their fundamental rights, especially equality, are violated.
Guides future institutions: The case helps courts decide if other societies, universities, research bodies or public-sector organisations should also be treated as State.
Important for exams and practice: It is a must-quote case in any answer on Article 12, “State”, instrumentality or agency and deep and pervasive control.

Key Takeaways for Students

CSIR is State under Article 12 because the Union Government controls its funds, leadership and policies in a deep and continuous manner.
Deep and pervasive control is the central test: look at finances, functioning and administration together.
Ordinary regulation or partial funding is not enough; the Government must truly drive the organisation.
Sabhajit Tewary is overruled. Do not rely on it as a correct statement of law about CSIR.
This case should be read along with Ajay Hasia, R.D. Shetty and later decisions on Article 12 for a complete picture.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “C-PAD” – When CSIR is on the State’s C-PAD

Remember that CSIR becomes State when it lies on the Government’s C-PAD:

C – Creation: Set up on Government initiative to do public research.
P – Purse: Major funding from Government grants.
A – Administration: Government heads, nominates and controls the governing body.
D – Decisions: Key service and policy decisions need Government approval.

3-Step Exam Hook

Start: “In Pradeep Kumar Biswas, a 7-Judge Bench reconsidered whether CSIR is State under Article 12 and overruled Sabhajit Tewary.”
Middle: “The Court applied the deep and pervasive control test – financial, functional and administrative control of the Union Government over CSIR.”
End: “Because CSIR lay on the State’s C-PAD (Creation, Purse, Administration, Decisions), it was held to be ‘State’ and fundamental rights became enforceable against it.”

IRAC Outline – One-View Answer

Issue (I)

Whether the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), running institutes such as the Indian Institute of Chemical Biology, is “State” or “other authority” under Article 12 so that writs for violation of fundamental rights can be maintained against it.

Rule (R)

A body becomes “State” under Article 12 when the Government exercises deep and pervasive control over it – especially in financial, functional and administrative matters. Mere regulatory control or partial funding is not enough.

Application (A)

CSIR was created at Government initiative to perform public research functions. Most of its funds came from Union Government grants. The Prime Minister was the ex officio President. The Government nominated and could remove key members of the governing body. Service conditions and major policy decisions needed Government approval. These features showed that the Government did not merely regulate CSIR but guided and controlled its real working.

Conclusion (C)

The Supreme Court held, by a 5:2 majority, that CSIR is an “authority” and thus “State” under Article 12. The earlier decision in Sabhajit Tewary was overruled, and employees could now enforce fundamental rights, including Article 14, against CSIR through writ petitions.

Glossary – Quick Concepts

Article 12: Provision that defines “State” for Part III of the Constitution. It includes the Government and Parliament of India, the Government and Legislatures of each State, and “all local or other authorities” within India or under the control of the Government of India.
Other authority: A body which may not be a traditional government department but is so closely controlled by the Government that, for fundamental rights, it is treated like State.
Deep and pervasive control: A level of Government control covering finances, everyday functioning and administration of an organisation, showing that the State is effectively running it.
Instrumentality or agency of the State: A body that acts on behalf of the Government in performing public functions and is therefore treated as State for fundamental rights.
Sabhajit Tewary case: An earlier Supreme Court case where CSIR was held not to be State. This view was overruled in Pradeep Kumar Biswas.

FAQs – Student Doubts Answered

The core issue was whether CSIR, which runs institutes like the Indian Institute of Chemical Biology, is “State” under Article 12. If yes, its actions can be tested against fundamental rights, and writ petitions for equality and fairness can be filed against it.

The Court felt that Sabhajit Tewary had taken too narrow a view. It did not fully recognise how strongly the Government controlled CSIR in finances, staffing and policy. The Constitution Bench, after a fresh and fuller review, held that CSIR is actually an instrumentality of the State and therefore overruled the old case.

Use the mnemonic C-PAD – Creation, Purse, Administration, Decisions. If the Government creates the body, funds it, runs its administration, and controls key decisions, there is deep and pervasive control. Such a body is likely to be “State” under Article 12.

No. The judgment does not say that every funded society is State. Courts must still look at the overall facts. Only when funding is combined with strong control over functioning and administration will the body be treated as State under Article 12.

Once CSIR is treated as State, its actions must follow the equality guarantee of Article 14. Employees can challenge unfair or discriminatory service decisions by filing writ petitions, which was not possible earlier when CSIR was treated as a purely private body.

Useful Links

Contact