AJAY HASIA & ORS V.

KHALID
MUJIB SEHRAVARDI & ORS
CITATION: (1981) 1 SCC 722, AIR 1981 SC 487
SYNOPSIS: -
• INTRODUCTION
• TIMELINE OF JUDGMENTS ON ART.12
• FACTS IN BRIEF
• RELEVANT ISSUES
• ARGUMENTS BY PETITIONERS
• ARGUMENTS BY RESPONDENTS
• SC JUDGMENT
• CURRENT STATUS
INTRODUCTION: -
- Ajay Hasia vs. Khalid Mujib is a landmark case in the Indian Constitution Law which enlarged
the scope of Art.12 of the Constitution of India, i.e., State.
- The case was heard by a five Judge Constitutional Bench which comprised of;
• i. Chief Justice Y.Y. Chandrachud
• ii. Justice P.N. Bhagwati
• iii. Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer
• iv. Justice S. Murtaza Fazal Ali
• v. Justice A.D. Koshal.

- The Judgment still continues to be an Authoritative Interpretation of Art.12.

- Judgment of the Court was delivered by Justice P.N.Bhagwati.

JUDGMENTS ON THE SCOPE OF ART.12: - (TIMELINE)
JUDGMENTS
1. University of Madras v.
Shanthabai, 1954
2. Ujjambai v. State of UP, 1961
3. Rajasthan State Electricity
Board v. Mohanlal, 1967
4. Sukhdev v. Bhagatram, 1975
5. R.D. Shetty v. IAA, 1979
RATIO DECIDENDI
The expression “Other Authorities” used in Art.12
should be interpreted ejusdem generis with the
preceeding three expressions.
Previous Judgment was overruled. Ejusdem Generis
Approach was held to be restrictive.
Authorities created under a Statute or the CoI are
often conferred with certain powers that are likely to
affect the Fundamental Rights. Thus, they qualify to
be a State.
Authorities created under a Statute qualify to be a
State even if they perform commercial functions.
Two Test Criteria was laid down in this case which
comprised of;
i. Substantial Degree of Control by the Govt., &
ii. Extra-ordinary Financial Assistance by the Govt.
FACTS IN BRIEF: -
- The Petitioners in this case had applied for admission to the B.E. Programme
of Regional Engineering College, Srinagar. The Admission Procedure
comprised of a Written Test (100 Marks) and a Viva Voce (50 Marks). The
Petitioners scored exceedingly well in the Written Test but were asked totally
irrelevant questions in the Viva. The Petitioners thus failed to clear the
Entrance Exam. On the other hand, Admissions were given to those who had
not performed well in the Written Test. Thus, the Petitioners filed a Writ
Petition under Art.32 of the CoI to challenge the said Admission Process.
- The question in this case is whether ‘Regional Engineering College’, Srinagar
can be regarded as a State within the ambit of Art.12 of the Constitution of
India.
FACTS IN BRIEF: -
- This College was established/constituted by The Government of India under
a Scheme to promote technical education in different parts of the country.
Also, the College was registered as a Society under The Jammu and Kashmir
Registration of Societies Act, 1898. However, this College was subject to
Government interference and control. Registration as a Society was merely
a veil to hide the Governmental Nature.
RELEVANT ISSUES: -

• Whether the ‘Regional Engineering College’ qualifies to be a State under the

ambit of Art.12 of the Constitution of India?
ARGUMENTS BY PETITIONERS: -
- The Petitioners critically examined the constitution, composition, nature and functions of
the ‘Regional Engineering College’.
- Following points were raised by the Petitioners;
i. That the Board of Governors of the said College comprised of Members which were
appointed by the Central and State Governments.
ii. That the Principal of the said College was an ex officio member of the Board of Governors,
and that the Chairman was appointed by the Government of India.
iii. That the College received funding primarily from the Central and State Government, with
the Central Government being the major contributory.
iv. That the land for the College was provided by the State Government of Jammu and Kashmir.
And the Central Government funded the construction of buildings and infrastructure.
- Thus, the Petitioner maintained that though the said College was registered formally as a
Society, the substance thereof did not change. In substance, the College was merely an
Agency/Instrumentality of the two Governments.
ARGUMENTS BY RESPONDENTS: -
- The Respondents on the other hand placed emphasis on the formal
recognition of the said College as a Society. They ignored the Governmental
interference/influence over the said College. So, they gave importance to
form over substance.
JUDGMENT: - (INSTRUMENTALITY TEST)
• The Hon’ble SC went beyond the form and considered the substance of the said College. It
ruled in favour of the Petitioners by stating that – If a body is functionally, structurally and
financially acting as an agency or instrumentality of the Government, then it is to be regarded
as a ‘State’ within the ambit of Art.12, irrespective of its form.

• Thus a 6 Test Criteria was laid down by the Hon’ble SC to determine whether or not a
body/authority/corporation is a State;
i. Entire (Substantial) Share Capital must be held by the Government.
ii. Substantial financial assistance must be given by the Government.
iii. The Government must have a deep and pervasive control over such body/authority.
(Appointments/Management)
iv. Monopoly status must be conferred by the Government to such body/authority. For
Example; Nuclear Power Corporation of India (NPCI).
v. Such a body/authority must perform functions of a public importance or governmental
functions.
vi. Functions/Activities of a former Government Department must be transferred to and carried
on by such body/authority.
CURRENT STATUS: -
• Ajay Hasia vs. Khalid Mujib continues to be a cornerstone of the Indian
Constitution Law. This case has not been overruled or diluted by subsequent
judicial decisions, the Principles articulated therein continue to hold its rigor.
This case continues to be an authority on Art.12 of the Constitution of India.

THE END