6 Citizenship Citizenship under Constitution | Constitution of india does not define the term ‘citizenship’, Citizenship is the relationship of an ind. ‘dual with the nation-state, Individual is conferred social and political rights and protection by the Statein terurn of fulfilment of certain obligations which such individual owes to the State. In other words i isa Status ofa person recognized bylaw asa legal member of any country. It is a privilege provided by the Constitution. Constitution of India does not lay down a comprehensive law on citizenship. Part I ofthe Constitution lays down the clases of persons to be the citizens of India. The entire law relating to the citizenship is to be regulated by the law Parliament, Following four classes of people have been recognized as Indian citizens: Citizenship a By Domicile Migrants to India Persons of Indian origin [Article 5], from Pakistan residing outside India or [Article 6] by Registration (Article 8] (1) Citizenship by domicile: Article 5 of the Constitution lays down that at the commencement of the Constitution every person who has his domicile inthe territory of India and fulfills any of the following conditions shall be the citizen of India— @ He was born in India; or (@) Either if whose parents was born inthe teritory of India; or (ii) Who has been ordinarily resident in the territory of India for n ot less than 5 years immediately receding such commencement. Concept of domicile: In order to constitute domicile residence must be indefinite and there must also be intention to reside at that place. It need not be continuous Dutit must not be of fleeing nature. Thus, there must be fctum and animusto constitute existence of domicile. The basic idea of ‘domicile is permanent home. The ‘esidence’ alone is not sufficient to constitute domicile, There ‘must be a clear intention to make the residence as a permanent home. Supreme Court in Central ‘Bank of India v. Ram Narain, AIR 1955 SC36 held that intention to reside forever in a country where one has taken up his residence isan essential constituent element of domicile in the country. 3B ‘Samarth Agrawal Books Scanned with CamScannerConstitution of India of origin Domicile << of choice shee ae two main categories of domicile ied : ached toan individual by birth, Domicile of choice i acquired by resident intetitory with the intention roreside permanently. Supreme Court in Louis De Raedt v. Union of India, AIR. 1991 SC 1886 held that frthe acquisition ofa domicile by choice, Domicile of origin isatt it must be shown that the person concerned had a certain state mind, Ifa person claims that he has acquired a new domicile, of he must prove that he had formed the intention of making his permanent home in the country of residence and of continuing to reside there permanently. In Pradeep Jain v. Union of India AIR 1984 SC 1420 and Yogesh Bharadwaj vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (1991) Supreme Court has held that Article 5 recognizes domicile of India. It does not recognize the concept of State domicile. The concept of regional or state domicile is alien to India. Regarding domicile of choice Supreme Court in Sondur Gopal v. Sondur Raj i(2013) has held that in domicile of choice mere acquisition of other domicile is not sufficient. There must be clear intention to abandon the domicile of origin, (2) Citizenship to migrants to India from Pakistan: Article 6 of the Constitution provides for the citizenship of persons who have migrated to India from Pakistan. Article 6(a) says that a person shall be deemed to be citizen of India on the date of commencement of the Constitution if he or either of his Parents or grand-parents was born in India as defined in Government of India Act, 1935 (originally en- acted). Article 6(b) further lays down two conditions: First: Those who came to India before 19% July 1948: In this case he must ordinarily be resident of India since the date of migration. Second: Those who came on or after 19 July 1948: In this case he must be registered as a citizen of India by officer appointed by Government of India. For the purpose of registration he must have been residing in India six months immediately before the date of application. If conditions mentioned in Article 6(a) or 6(b) are satisfied he shall be deemed to be citizen of India. (3) Citizenship to Persons of Indian origin residing outside India or Citizenship by Registra- tion: Article 8 provides that any person whose either of the parents or grand-parents was born in India as defined in Government of India Act, 1935 and the person is ordinarily residing in any other country shall be deemed to be citizen of India if he has been registered as citizen of India by Diplomatic or Consular Representatives of India in that country. For the purpose of registration the person has to make an applica- tion to such diplomatic or consular representatives. Scanned with CamScannerA Compendious Guide to Judicial Services Mains Examinations: Volume It Antcle 9 provides that ifa person voluntarily acquires the citizenship of any forcign State Shall ng able to claim citizenship under Article 5, 6 of 8, Ter be nination of citizenship: Article 7 lays down that a person will cease to bea citize ‘migrated to Pakistan after Ist March 1947. Thus, citizenship acquited under Article 5 or 6 sh if the above condition is present. P of India iphy all come x Deng Yoviso to this Antcle further states that if the petson so my igtatey hall be er Article 6(b) shally ‘ubsequently returns to India on the basis of permit of resettlement or permanent return he 3 deemed to be migrated to the territory of India and conditions mentioned und. applicable. In Bhanwaru Khan v, Union of India (2002) Supreme Court reco nized that those who had volun, ‘arly migrated to Pakistan and became citizens ther, cannot return to India, They cannot claim the citizen. ‘hip of India on the ground that they had been living in India fora long time and theie names have been included in the voter list. Rights and privileges available to citizens of Ind; Following rights and privileges have been sranted by the Constitution to the citizens of India 1+ No discrimination on the bass of religion, race, caste, se, place of birth (Article 15). Night to equality of opportunity in matters of public employment (Article 16), 3. Right to freedoms enumerated in Article 19, 4 Cultural and Educational Rights (Article 29 and 30). 5. Certain Offices under the Constitution can be occupied by citizens only viz. President [Article 58(I)(a)h: Vice President [Article 66(3)a); Judges of Supreme Court and High Court [Articles 124(3), 2172) Atorney General (Article 761); Governor of State [Article 157}; Advocate General of State [Article 165] etc, 6. Right to vote for elections of Parliament and State Legislature. Only citizens can become members of Parliament and State Legislature, Acquisition or termination of, citizenship in Citizenship Act, 1955 Provisions mentioned in the Constitution regarding citizenship are not exhaustive. These Provisions are limited to defining citizens of India atthe commencement ofthe Constitution, Constitution does not de with the problem of acquisition and termination of citizenship subsequent to the date of commencement of Constitution. Article 11 of the Constitution is an enabling provision and it gives the power to the Parliament to make any provisions with respect to acquisition or termination of citizenship and other matters related to citizenship. Parliament has enacted Citizenshi 1endment Act, 1955 in pursuance of the power conferred under Article 11. —_—— Scanned with CamScannerreese Constitution of India vides that ifa person has voluntarily acquired the pro% -nship of any foreign State he shall 9 1; a Article India by virtue of Article 5, 6 oF 8, This Article applies to persons who have acquired ero be citizen « jxizenship oF Y he Constitution then he will er {any foreign Stat after the commencement ofthe Constitution then he willbe governed jizenship oF the citiz sions of Citizenship Act, 1955. foreign State before the commencement of the Constitution, Ifany person acquires Lis oe him Wazir v. State of ‘Bombay (1952) the constitutional validity of Influx from Pakistan ‘ fe 1949 was involved. The Act provided that no person domiciled in India or Pakistan shall lees aa Pakistan without a permit. If he does so he commits an offence. The Act empowered the omen to remove any person from India who has committed or against whom a reasonable suspi- Gon exist that he has committed an offence, The Supreme Court held this provision to be ultra vires to the Constitution. Forcible removal of Indian citizen from India would amount to deprivation of his citizenship. ‘The Supreme Court held that the citizenship can only be taken away by recourse to Article 11 of the Constitution. Acquisition of citizenship under Citizenship Act, 1955 : This Act provides the acquisition of Indian citizenship in five ways ie. birth, descent, registration, naturalization and incorporation of territory. I T T = T 1 Binh Descent Registration Naturalization Incorporation of [Section 3] {Section 4] {Section 5] [Section 6] territory [Section 7] (1) Citizenship by Birth (Section 3) : It lays down the following conditions for acquisition for citizenship by birth— (a) Every person born in India on or after 26th January, 1950 but before 1 July 1987. (b) Onor after 1 July, 1987 but before commencement of Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2003 and sither of whose parents is a citizen of India at the time of birth. © On or after commencement of Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2003 where (i) both of his parents are Indian citizens, or (ji) one of whose parents is a citizen of India and other is not illegal migrant at the time of his birth, Section 3(2) puts a restriction on the above mentioned conditions. It says that such person shall not be 4 citizen of India if at the time of his birth (a) either his father or mother possess such immunity from suits and legal process as is accorded to an envoy of a foreign sovercign power accredited to the President of India and he or she is not a citizen of India, or (b) his father or mother is an enemy alien, (2) Citizenship by descent (Section 4) : It lays down following conditions for acqui zenship by descent, A person born outside India shall be citizen of India by descent- Scanned with CamScannerA Compendious Guide to Judicial Services Mains Examinations : Volume I! (2) On or afier 26% January, 1950 but before 10th December, 1992 if his father is a ci zen of at the time of his birth, or "iy (6) On or after 10th December, 1992 if birth, er of his parents is citizen of India atthe time fi of i, It farther provides that if the father of a person referred in clause (a) was a citizen of Ind tia by desce : ; 7 cols, the person shall not bea citizen of India by virtue ofthis section unless; i) his birth i registered i: Indian Consulate within one year of its occurrence or the commencement of the Act, whichever 1S eatligg or (ii) either of his parents is at the time of his birth, in service under Government of India, Ifa person is born on or after commencement of Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2003 he shall not be a citizen of India by virtue of section 4 unless his birth is registered at an Indian Consulate within one ae of its occurrence or the commencement of Amendment Act, 2003, whichever is later. @) Citizenship by Registration (Section 5) : Section 5 lays down that following categories of Persons can be registered as citizens of India by making an application to the Prescribed Authority (@ Person of Ini in origin who is ordinarily resident of India for seven years before making an application for registration, (©) Person of Indian origin who is ordinarily resident in any country or place outside undivided India (©) Person who is married to a citizen of India and is ordinarily resident of India for seven years before making an application for registration. (4) Minor children of persons who are citizens of India, (©) Persons of full age and capacity whose parents are registered as citizens of India under section 6(1)(a). (Person of full age and capacity who, or either of his parents, was eatlier citizen of independent India, and is ordinarily resident in India for 12 months immediately before making an application. (s) Person of full age and capacity who has been registered as an Overseas Citizen of India Card- holder for five years, and who is ordinarily resident in India for 12 months before making an application for registration, (4) Citizenship by naturalization (Section 6) : Central government may grant the certificate of naturalization to any person who is of full age and capacity, not an illegal migrant and has satisfied the qualifications for naturalization under third schedule upon his making an application in prescribed manner. Following are the qualifications for naturalization- (@) He should not bea citizen of such country wherein the citizens of India are denied citizenship by naturalization; Scanned with CamScannerBP cheisa citizen of anyother country, he undertakes to renounce the citizenship of that country: f Constitution of India ) oO He has either resided in India or has been in service of government of India throughout the period of 12 months immediately preceding the date of application. The Central government may relax the period of 12 months up to maximum of thirty days; (a). Daring the period of 14 years immediately preceding the said period of 12 years, he has cither resided in India or has been in service of Government of India for a period amounting to aggregate of not less than 11 years; (He is of good character; (9 Hehasan adequate knowledge of any language specified in Eighth Schedule of the Constitution. (@) Incase the certificate of naturalization is granted to him he intends to reside in India or enter or continue in service of Government of India or under any International Organization of which India is a member (5) Citizenship by incorporation of territory (Section 7) : If new territory becomes part of India the Government of India shall specify that persons of the territory to be citizens of India. Act, 1955 The Citizenship Act, 1955 provides for termination of citizenship whether it was acquired under Citizenship Act, 1955 or prior to it, under the provisions of the Constitution. Citizenship can be terminated in the following ways- Renunciation Termination Deprivation (1) Renunciation of ci snship: Section 8 of the Act lays down that any Indian citizen of full age and capacity who is also a citizen or national of another country can renounce his citizenship by making a declaration to that effect and having it registered. If such declaration is made during a war then such declaration shall be withheld. When a male person renounces his citizenship every minor child of his ceases to be Indian citizen. (2) Termination of citizenshi Section 9 lays down that if any citizen of this country voluntary acquires the citizenship of any country he shall cease to be citizen of India. This provision does not apply to a citizen who during a war in which India is engaged voluntarily acquires the citizenship of any other country. Scanned with CamScannerA Compendious Guide to Judicial Services Mains Examinations: Volume IL (3) Deprivation of citizenship: Section 10 lays down that a person may be deprived of his Citizen, ship by Government of India if it is satisfied that— (9) Any aud se representation or concealment of materi fit wat practiced in eit naturalization; (b) Person has shown himself to be disloyal to the Indian Constitution; (©) During war in which India was engaged he has unlawfully traded or communicated with th enemy; (@) ‘Within 5 years of his registration or naturalization he hasbeen sentenced to not ess than 2 yer, (©) Hehasbeen ordinarily residing out of India for seven years continuously. Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2003: Exhaustive amendments have been made in the Citizenship ‘Act by the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2003. The main purpose of these amendments sto provide dus! Citizenship to “overseas citizens” of India of specified countries mentioned in the Fourth Schedule ofthe ‘Act added by the amendment. ‘The following countries are mentioned in the Fourth Schedule: Australia, Canada, Finland, France, Greenland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Netherland, New Zealand, Portu- gal, Cyprus, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom, and the United States of America. [ Status of Corporation as a citizen ‘There are certain Fundamental Rights which are available to ‘persons’ and certain Fundamental Rights are available to ‘tizen. In this connection an interesting question arises, viz whether a statutory corporation can be treated as ‘citizen’ and be given the benefit of those fundamental rights which are available to ‘citizens only. Corporation isa legal personality and nota natural person, Provisions elated to citzenshipin Part Il ofthe Constitution and Citizenship Act, 1955 deals with citizenship of natural persons. Supreme Courtin State Trading Corporation v. Commercial Tax Officer(1963) held thatacom: Pany is not a citizen of India and therefore, cannot claim Fundamental Rights which have been conferred ‘upon its citizens, The court further clarified that the citizenship in Part Il is concerned with the natural Persons and not juristic persons. The court held that a company might have a ‘nationality’ but it does not have ‘citizenship’. Court distinguished ‘nationality and ‘citizenship’ and held that ‘nationality’ is a concept of international law while ‘citizenship’ is a concept of municipal law. Company might have a‘nationalty’ which is usually determined by the place of incorporation but it does not havea ‘citizenship’. Can a company become citizen through its sharcholders2: In Tata Engineering v. State of Bihar AIR 1965 SC 40 it was contended by shareholders of the company that though the company was not the citizen but shareholders were citizens and therefore, the fundamental rights ofits shareholders must Scanned with CamScannerConstitution of India _abyliting the corporate vel The Supreme Court while rejecting the said contention held that ‘ avin : : pe achiewed directly cannot also be achieved indirectly. Thus, company does not reccive the “of fandamental rights through shareholders, pe pote“ ayhat 20 0% " putin the ease of R. C. Cooper v. Union of India (Bank Nationalization case), AUR 1970 SC 564 me Court held that if the State’s action impairs the rights of shareholders and well as that of company ‘Supreme he shareholders will be entitled to protection under Article 19, From this case the Supreme Court adopted the slexble approach in interpreting this aspect. In Bennett Coleman and Co. v. Union of India, AIR 1973 Gc 106 the Supreme Court held that the rights of shareholders with regard to Article 19(1)(a) were pro- rected and manifested by the newspapers owned and controlled by the shareholders through medium of corporation. In Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1975 SC 32 the Supreme Court held that though company is not a citizen but a shareholder has a right to carry on business through agency ofacompany. Further in D.C & G.M. v. Union of India AIR 1983 SC 937 the Supreme Court held that writ petition filed by the company for violation of Fundamental Rights under Article 19 is maintainable. ooo Scanned with CamScanner7 Fundamental Rights Concept of Fundamental Rights Since time immemorial a theory was veering around human thinking that thereate certain base certain basics nay, Fal inalienable rights which the State must protectin order to preserve human Niberty, dignity and to deg, elon human personality. Concept of rights can be traced to natural law philosophers. Locke propounded y,.~ at ‘an is bor with ttle to perfect freedom and an uncontrolled enjoyment ofall the rights and Privileges op o the law of nature. The first concrete polit ical statement on rights can be traced to Declaration of | French Revolution, 1789 which states that ‘the ai mf al politcal sociation ihe conservation of the natu ag inalienable rights of man’, The concept of rights protects an individ al from the atrocities of State Protects an individual from oppression and injustice, In modern times idea of ri essence of free society and safeguarding of minimum freedom. ights encompasses the in the Constitution. These rights can be termed aS certain, rotect rights and liberties ofthe people agains the encroachment by ee the State. These rights are regarded as i damental” be nent of Part III of the Constitution contains Funda Carta’ of India, C 1n Constitution. Entrenchment ‘means that the guaranteed rights cannot be taken away by an ordinary law. A law curtailing or infringing imental Rights. These have been also termed as ‘Magna Certain essential fundamental rights are entrenched in In fundamental right would be declared as void. Entrenchment serves two primary purpose, firth they cone justiciable rights on the people which can be enforced through the mechanism of courts and secondly they constitute limitation or restriction on government's action, = Americans were the first to give Constitutional status to the Bill of Rights, Framers of Indian Const tution took inspiration from them and incorporated a dedicated chapter to the fundamental rights. rio it, Magna Carta in England was the frst written document which assured English people of ertain bc rights and libere. | : An Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) | SCC 248 the Supreme Court observed that funds- ‘mental rights represent the basic values cherished by the people of India and they protect the dignity ofan ty to the fullest extent. * society for Unaided Private Schools of Rajasthan v. Union of India, (2012) 6SCC 1 Supreme ‘Court held that fundamental rights have two aspects, firstly, they act as a fetter on plenary legislati ve powers and secondly, they provide conditions for fuller development of people. ~ - " Scanned with CamScannerConstitution of India ‘he aimot the inclusion ofthese rights inthe Constitution i to protect the values which are indepen be for an independent society. Peopte have given the goverriment the power to rule over them and certain able for an independ i . rights are kept beyond! their power to establish them as legal principles to te applied by the courts, Even nv. Madras afier getting majority in legislature the government cannot trample upon them [A.K. Gopal State (1950) ln Mt, Naygana] v. Unton of tala (2007), the Supreme Court hhas held that the Constitution _has confirmed the existence of fundamen [rights and given them protection, Individuals possess certain “pasic human rights independently of any Constitution by reason of the fact that they are humana Daryao y. State of Uttar Pradesh, AU s 7 Supreme Court observed that fundamental rights are & ¥) Following fundamental rights have been conferred by Part III of the Constitution— — I T T I I T Right to Rightto -Rightagainst. =—-Rightto.-—-Culturaland Right to equality freedom exploitation freedom of Educational __ constitutional [Articles 14-18] [Articles 19-22] [Articles 23-24] religion Rights remedies [Articles 25-28} [Articles 29.30] [Articles 32-35] (B) Note: 44% Constitutional Amendment has abolished right to property as fundamental right. Hence Article 19(1)(f) and Article 31 have been omitted. Concept of ‘State’ Most of the Fundamental Rights contained in Part III of the Constitution are guaranteed against the “State. Therefore, it becomes absolutely necessary to understand the scope and import ofthe term ‘State’ The actions of any of the bodies comprised within the term ‘State’ as defined in Article 12 can be chal- Tenged before the court for violation of fundamental right, Article 12 defines the term ‘State’ for the purpose of Part III of the Constitution. According to Article 12 the term ‘State’ includes the following:- ot ——_ ‘The Government The Government All local or other All local or other and Parliament and the Legislature authorities within authorities under of India ie, Executive of each State ie. the territory the control of and Legislature Executive and of India. Government of India of the Union. Legislature of States. fin seference to Article 12 the word ‘authority’ means power to make laws orders, regulation, bylaws regulations ete. Scanned with CamScannerA Gompenaions Guide to Judicial Servis Mains Examinations: Volume It Local Authority: The trm ‘Local Authority’ is def in Section 331) of the General Causey he NSCS Ae, refers to authorities Municipalities, District boards, Village councils (Gram Panchayats), Improvemen, Trusts, Mining Settlement etc, For an authority to be characterized as local authort legal existence. It must not be must have a separa, nere siternment cy but must be pally and independent enti Tema pce tm ag function ina dlfned area and must ordinarily Be ected by inhabitants ofthe area, w)-Other Authority :Itis the most significant expression used in Article 12, The “~Gefined in the Const on has not bey al attention. Its quite obvious thae lr willbe the scope ofthe definition © trappings of fundamental right ind ther thas attracted alot of ju the wider the meaning attributed to the term ‘other authorities the wid of the term ‘State’ and more and more authorities will be susceptible t In an era of welfare state, government perform: — ees but the important question is whether: ‘autonomous bodies’ fall within this Scope? And if so, to what extent? ty of State” Any body which is reparded 3 EE Bo Roy which is regarded a Supreme Court has developed the concept of ‘instrumentali ‘instrumentality’ of State falls under ‘Article 12, et ¥ ‘Theexpression ‘other authorities has been interpreted differently vycou In University of Madras ¥. Santa Bai(1954) Madras High Court held that ‘other authorities’ could et Makes High Court held that ‘othe only be interpreted by using the i i Sono nterpreted by using the Principle of gud generis. Therefore, it could only mean authorities exerci ing governmental or sovereign PERC of guader generis ses exercising governmenta functions. Supreme Courtin Electricity Board, Rajasthan v. Mohan Lal, AIR 1967 SC 1857 rejected interpretation given in Santa Bai’s case and held thatthe expression ‘other a tuthorities’ is wide enough to include all authorities created by the Constitution or statute on. whom the power is conferred by law. Its not ‘necessary thatthe authority must be engaged in performing governmental or sovereign function, In Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagatram, AIR 1975 $C1331 Supreme Court held tha the functions of areof public importance and closely related to government functions then it should be tasated as agency or instrumentality of government iz ‘State within the meaning of Part Il. The court also observed that even a ‘non statutory’ body canbe regarded a ‘Stat’ In this ase Supreme Court held three Statutory bodies viz. Life Insurance Corporation (LIC), Oil and Natural Gas Corporation (ONCG) and Finance Corporation as ‘State’. {p Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. The International Airport Authority of India, AIR 1979 SC 1628, Supreme Court followed the broader test lad down in Subbdev Singhs case The court developed a Beneral proposition that an instrumentality’ or ‘agency’ of the State can be regarded as ‘other authority Within the meaning of Article 12, The court laid down following test to determine whether a body is an agency or instrumentality of the State- Se ye es Scanned with CamScannerConstitution of India 1, Financial resources of the State is the chief funding source of the body. 2. Existence of deep and pervasive State control. 3. Functional character of the body is governmental in essence, 4. Department of government is tr: 5. ‘ansferred to the corporation, Whether the Corporation enjoys monopoly status which is State conferred or State protected, The court held that these tests are not conclusive. They are illustrative and should be used with great careand caution. In Som Prakash v. Union of India, AIR 1981 SC212 Supreme Court held that the true is statutory or non-statutory. In Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib, AIR 1981 SC 487, Supreme Court held that a Society registered tender the Socteties Registration Act, 1894, isan agency or instrumentality of the Stare and hence a ‘within the meaning of Article 12, The court observed thatthe testis not how a juristic person is crea why it has been brought into existence, ‘State’ ted but Once a body becomes ‘authority’ for the purpose of Article 12it becomes amenable to fundamental reference to fundamental rights and also subject to the writ ts. rights ic its actions can be challenged with 1 jurisdiction of Supreme Court and High Cou Judiciary as ‘State’: Article 12 of the Constitution defines the word referred to in Article 12. There has always been a debate whether the judiciary’, as an organ of government, should be included within the ambit of the term ‘State’. Judiciary is not expressly ‘State’. According to H. M. Seervai, the judiciary should be included under the definition of the ‘State’ and judge should be subject to writ jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. The question whether the judiciary comes under the word ‘State’ or not was considered by Supreme Court in Naresh v. ‘State of Maharashtra, AIR 1967 SC 1. Supreme Court did not: ‘express any definitive opinion on the matter. It said that even ifthe Courtis considered within the meaning of State’ a wrt under Article 32 cannot be issued to a High Court against its judicial orders. The Supreme Court opined that such judicial orders cannot be said to violate the fundamental rights. Again in A. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak, AIR 1988 SC 1531, the Constitution Bench of Supreme Court touched this question and held that court cannot ass an order or issue a direction which would be violative of fundamental rights. It means under Article 12 judiciary can also be included within the ambit of ‘State’. However, the Supreme Court in this case did not overrule Naresh’s case. In Riju Prasad Sharma v. State of Assam (2015) Supreme Court categorically held that courts while ana 4 acting on judicial side are not ‘State’ under Article 12 of the Constitution. When the courts act in purely jurisdiction against their administrative actions. Thus, administrative capacity then they may attract the writ jurisdiction against their administrative a Scanned with CamScannerafter the decision of Riju Pi SI. No. A Compendious Guide to Judi Side are not State’ but they may attract the trappings of Authorities which Authority UP. Warchousing Corporation asad Sharma's case the Position is amply clear that courts while ial Services Mains Examinations: Volume If acting on : li ate’ when they actin administrative pyc. ac are ‘State’ Case U.P. Warehousing Corporation y, Viay Narayan (1980) Bharat Petroleum Corporation Som Prakash v. Union of tndia(i9a Council for Scientific amd Industrial Research (CSIR) Pradecp Kumar Biswas v. Indian isings for Chemical Biology (2002) Indian Statistical Institute BS. Minhas v. Indian Statistical Instiagg (1983) (ONGO), Life Insurance Corporation (LIC) and Industrial Finance Corporation (IEC) Rajasthan Electricity Board Electricity Board, Rajasthan v. Mohan Lay (1967) Oil and Natural Gas Commission Sukhdev v. Bhagatram(1975) Airport Authority of India Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. The Intema- tional Airport Authority of India (1979) Food Corporation of India Workmen F.C.I v. M/s F.C.I.(1985) Steel Authority of India (SAIL) Indian Oil Corporation Bihar State Harjjan Kalyan Parishad v, Union of India(1985) Mahabir Auto Stores v. Indian Oil Corporation (1990) Society registered under Societies Registration Act, 1898 Bihar State Electricity Board Indian Council of Agricultural Research, (ICAR) Central Inland Water Transport Corporation. —t Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib(1981) Surya Narain Yadav v. B.S.E(1985) 5.M. Ilyas v. ICAR(1993) Central Inland Water Transport Corpo- ration v. Brojo Nath Ganguly (1986) V.K. Srivastava v. U.P. Rajya Karamchari U.P. Rajya Karamchari Kalyan Nigam Kalyan Nigam (2005) Scanned with CamScannerConstitution of India Authorities which are not ‘State’ Authority Case Institute of Constitutional and Tekraj v. the Union of India(1988) Parliamentary Studies: Board of Cricket for Control in India Zee Telefilms v. Union of India (2005) (BCCI) International Crop Research Institute G. Bassi Reddy v. International Crops Research Institute (2003) Supreme Court said that the non-aided Satimbla Sharma v. St. Pals Senior Secondary School (2011) minority schools on which there is no administra\ ve control of the Government due to their autonomy under Art. 30 (1), are not ‘States’ under Art. 12. International Commission on Irrigation and Drainage (ICID) K.K. Saxena v. International Commission on Irrigation and Drainage (2015) Chandra Mohan Khanna v. N.C.E.R.T (1992) Scanned with CamScanner