Appeal No 1690 of 1981
167 From the Judgment and order dated 1041980 of the Delhi High Court in Civil Writ No 450 of 1971
HK Puri for the Appellant
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by K JAGANNATHA SHETTY J
Whether the National Council of Educational Research and Training NCERT is State as defined under Article 12 of the Constitution  This is the only question that calls for decision in this appeal
The appellant was an employee of the NCERT
This services were terminated by the Secretary of NCERT
Challenging the termi nation he moved the Delhi High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution
The NCERT raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the writ petition
The objection was that the NCERT is not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court as it is not an instrumentality or other authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitu tion
The High Court has upheld the preliminary objection and dismissed the writ petition
The decision of the High Court has been challenged in this appeal
There are only general principles but not exhaustive test to determine whether a body is an instrumentality or agency of the Government
Even in general principles there is no cut and dried formula which would provide correct division of bodies into those which are instrumentalities or agencies of the Government and those which are not
The powers functions finances and control of the Government are some of the indicating factors to answer the question whether a body is State or not
Each case should be han dled with care and caution
Where the financial assistance from the State is so much as to meet almost entire expendi ture of the institution or the share capital of the corpo ration is completely held by the Government it would afford some indication of the body being impregnated with govern mental character
It may be a relevant factor if the in stitution or the corporation enjoys monopoly status which is State conferred or State protected
Existence of deep and pervasive State control may afford an indication
If the functions of the institution are of public importance and related to governmental functions it would also be a rele vant factor
These are merely indicative indicia and are by no means conclusive or clinching in any ease See Sukhdev Singh vs Bhagat Ram   RD Shetty vs Inter national Airport Authority 19793 SCC 489 Ajay Hasia vs Khalid Mujib Sehravardhi 19811 SCC 722 and Som Prakash Rekhi vs Union of India 19811 SCC 449
168 Article 12 should not be stretched so as to bring in every autonomous body which has some nexus with the Govern ment within the sweep of expression State
A wide enlarge ment of the meaning must be tempered by a wise limitation
It must not be lost sight of that in the modern concept of Welfare State independent institution corporation and agency are generally subject to State control
The State control does not render such bodies as State under Article 12
The State control however vast and pervasive is not determinative
The financial contribution by the State is also not conclusive
The combination of State aid coupled with an unusual degree of control over the management and policies of the body and rendering of an important public service being the obligatory functions of the State may largely point out that the body is State
If the Govern ment operates behind a corporate veil carrying out govern mental activity and governmental functions of vital public importance there may be little difficulty in identifying the body as State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution
See PK Ramachandra lyer vs Union of India 19842 SCC 141 Central Inland Water Transport Corporation vs Brojonath Gangoli and Tekraj Vasandhi alias KL Basandhi vs Union of India 19882 SCR 260
The NCERT is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act
Like all societies it has a Memorandum of Association
It has Rules for internal management
The High Court has elaborately examined the Memorandum of Association and the rules of the NCERT
The relevant part of the discus sion by the High Court is as follows The NCERT is governed by a Memorandum of Association subscribed to by seven officers of the Government of India on 661961
Under clause 31 of the Memorandum of Association the object of the Council is to assist and advise the Ministry of Education and Social Welfare in the implementation of its policies and major programmes in the field of education particularly school education
Under clause 32 the Council is empowered for the realisa tion of the above objectives to undertake several kinds of programmes and activities which include coordination or research exten sion services and training dissemination of improved educational techniques and practices in schools collaboration in educational programmes distribution of ideas and informa tion preparation and publication of books materials periodicals and other literature and allied activities
Under clause 5 the income and property of the Council is to be applied towards the promotion of its ob 169 jects and cannot be disposed of by way of dividends bonus etc
But under this clause the Council is free to apply the income and property towards its objectives in such manner as it may think fit
It is subject to the limitations placed by the Government of India in this regard only in respect of the expendi ture of grants made by the Government
Under clause 6 the Government of India could review the work and progress of the Council and take appropriate action to give effect to the reports received on enquiries
In addition the Government could at any time issue direc tions to the Council on important matters of policy and programmes
 Rule 3 of the Rules of the Council provides for Constitution of the Council which consists mainly of various Government officials but also includes the Chairman of the University Grants Commission four Vice Chancellors and a number of nomi nees four from school teachers and several others
Rule 7 enables the Government to fix the period of appointment of the members and to extend it from time to time
The council s affairs are conducted by the Executive Commit tee whose constitution is outlined in Rule 23
This includes various Government servants but it also includes four educationists and three Professors and Heads of Departments who may be nominated by the President
Rule 37 provides that if there is any difference of opinion the view of the majority will prevail subject to a veto which could be exercised by the Govern ment of India within a month
It also enables the President to refer any question for the decision of the Government
Rule 40 enables the Executive Committee to frame and amend Regulations not inconsistent with the rules
Rule 42 empowers the Executive Committee to enter into arrangements
with Government public or private organisations or individuals in furtherance of its objectives and implemen tation of its programmes
Rule 57 provides that the funds of the council shall consist of i grants made by Government ii contribu tion from other sources iii Income from the assets of the Council and iv Receipts of the Council from other sources
 The object of the NCERT as seen from the above analysis is to assist and advise the Ministry of Education and Social Welfare in the implementation of the Governmental policies and major programmes in the field of education particularly school education
The NCERT undertakes several kinds of programmes and activities connected with the coordination of  170 research extension services and training dissemination of improved educational techniques collaboration in the educa tional programmes
It also undertakes preparation and publi cation of books materials periodicals and other litera ture
These activities are not wholly related to Government functions
The affairs of the NCERT are conducted by the Executive Committee comprising of Government servants and educationists
The Executive Committee would enter into arrangements with Government public or private organisa tions or individuals in furtherance of the objectives for implementation of programmes
The funds of the NCERT consist of i grants made by the Government ii contribution from other sources and iii income from its own assets
It is free to apply its income and property towards the promo tion of its objectives and implementation of the programmes
The Government control is confined only to the proper utili sation of the grant
The NCERT is thus largely an autonomous body
Almost a similar case was considered by this Court in Tekraj Vasandhi alias KL Basandhi vs Union of India 19882 SCR 260
This Court was required to determine wheth er the Institute of Constitutional and Parliamentary Studies ICPS was State under Article 12
The ICPS was a registered society financed mostly by the Central Government and partly by gifts and donations from Indian and foreign agencies
The first President of the society was the then Speaker of the Lok Sabha
Out of the five vice presidents three were the then central ministers the other two were the then Chief Justice of India and the Attorney General
The objects of the society were to provide for constitutional and parlia mentary studies promotion of research in constitutional law setting up of legislative research and reference serv ice for the benefit of legislators organisation of training programmes in matters of parliamentary interest and impor tance and publication of a journal
The Court found that ICPS was born as a voluntary organisation
It found further that though the annual financial contribution from the State was substantial it was entitled to receive aid from the public and in fact received contributions from other sources
Its objects were not governmental business
As regards the argument that the government exercised pervasive control over ICPS the Court said In a Welfare State    
Gov ernmental control is very pervasive and touch es all aspects of social exist ence   
A broad picture of the matter has to be taken and a discerning mind has to be applied keeping the realities and human experiences in view so as to reach a reasonable conclusion In the light of all these factors it has held that ICPS was not State 171 In the present case the High Court has relied upon the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in Sabhjit Tewari vs Union of India and Ors  There it was held that the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research CSIR which was sponsored and controlled by the Central Government and registered under the Societies Registration Act was not State within the meaning of Article 12
But this decision has been distinguished and watered down in the subsequent decisions particularly in Ajay Hasia and Ramchan dra lyer cases supra
Counsel for the appellant strongly relied upon the decision in PK Ramchandra lyer case where this Court held that Indian Council for Agricultural Research ICAR was State under Article 12
But it may be noted that ICAR was originally an attached office of the Government of India and its position was not altered when it was registered as a society
That case therefore is clearly distinguishable
In our opinion the case on hand having regard to the indications to which we have called attention earlier does not satisfy the requirements of State under Article 12 of the Constitution
We therefore agree with the conclusion of the High Court and dismiss the appeal
In the circum stances of the case we make no order as to costs
RP Appeal dis missed


Summary:
Section 361 of the East Punjab Public Safety Act 1949 Punj
5 Of 1949 which was passed in the wake of the partition disturbances in India with a view to ensure public safety and the maintenance of public order provided that offences mentioned therein land committed in the area declared to be dangerously disturbed under section 20 Of the Act should be tried under the summons procedure prescribed by Ch
XX of the Code of Criminal Procedure
By the first notification issued under section 2o of the Act the whole of the Province of Delhi was declared to be a dangerously disturbed area subsequently the second notification purported to cancel the first
The third notification then sought to modify the second by inserting into it the words except as respect things done or omitted to be done before this notification 
The fourth and last notification issued under section 361 of the Act sought to save proceedings thereunder pending after the cancellation of the first notification
The appellant who was put up for trial in three cases for offences ordinarily triable under the warrant procedure was tried under the summons procedure according to section 361 of the Act and the first notification and the trials were continued even after the expiry of the Act in respect of substantial parts of them under the same procedure and ended in his conviction which was affirmed by the High Court in appeal
The Act was a temporary Act and contained no provision saving pending proceedings It was contended on behalf of the appellant that the first part of section 361 of the Act in treating the disturbed areas as a class by themselves and providing a uniform procedure for the trial of specified offences violated article 14 Of the Constitution and that the continuance of the trials under the summons procedure even after the expiry of the Act was invalid
Held that the two tests of the validity of the classification made by the Legislature were 1 that the classification must be based on an intelligible differentia and 2 that this differentia must be reasonably connected with the object of the legislation
Thus tested there could be no doubt in the present case that the classification on a geographical basis made by the impugned 88 Act between areas that were dangerously disturbed and other areas in the interest of speedy trial of offences was perfectly justified
Ram Krishna Dalmia vs justice Tendolkar   relied on
Lachmandas Kewalram Ahuja vs The State of Bombay   held inapplicable
But since the impugned Act was a temporary Act and contained no appropriate provision saving the summons procedure prescribed by it that procedure could not on the expiry of the Act apply to the cases pending against the appellant
Krishnan vs The State of Madras   relied on
Wicks vs Director of Public Prosecutions 1947 AC 362 referred to
The third and the fourth notifications obviously intended to cure the absence of a saving provision in the Act were wholly outside the authority conferred on the delegate by section 2o or section 361 of the Act and must be held to be invalid
With the issue of the second notification therefore the entire province of Delhi ceased to be a dangerously disturbed area
It was erroneous to apply by analogy the provisions of section 6 of the General Clauses Act to cases governed by a temporary Act such as the one in question which did not contain the appropriate saving provision and contend that since the trials had commenced validly their continuance under the same procedure even after the declaration had ceased to operate and subsequent orders of conviction and sentence passed therein were valid as well
Srinivasachari vs The Queen Mad 336 Mukund vs Ladu and Gardner vs Lucas  held inapplicable
Ram Singh vs The Crown AIR 1950 East Punjab 25 dis approved
Syed Qasim Razvi vs The State of Hyderabad 1953 SCR 589 referred to and distinguished