TAMIL NADU NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, TIRUCHIRAPALLI

(A STATE UNIVERSITY ESTABLISHED BY ACT NO. 9 OF 2012)

Navalurkuttapattu, Srirangam Taluk, Tiruchirappalli – 620 009, Tamil Nadu

Subject: Constitutional Law

WRITS AGAINST EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS UNDER THE
PURVIEW OF ARTICLE 12

STUDENT’S NAME

Sonali Priyadarsani
BA0190048

Course Faculty:
Ms. Sumedha Sarkar,
Assistant Professor (Law),
TNNLU
 DECLARATION

I Sonali Priyadarsani, Register Number: BA0190048, hereby declare that this Research
Paper / Research Project work entitled “Writs Against Educational Institutions Under The
Purview Of Article 12” has been originally carried out by me under the guidance and
supervision of Ms. Sumedha Sarkar, Assistant Professor (Law), Tamil Nadu National Law
University, Tiruchirappalli - 620 027. This work has not been submitted either in whole or in
part of any Degree / Diploma at any University.

Place: Tiruchirappalli Signature of the Candidate

Date: 20th November 2020. Sonali Priyadarsani

 ACKOWLEDGEMENT

I have put in the fullest efforts to complete this project. It would not have been possible
without the generous help and support of many people. I would like to extend our heartfelt
gratitude to each and every one of them. I am extremely obligated to TNNLU for their
guidance and their support in effecting the project. I would like to express our appreciation to
Ms. Sumedha Sarkar, Assistant Professor (Law), for her inspiration which assisted me in
finalizing the project. My sincere thanks and obligations also to my parents and classmates in
making this project a reality and people who have willingly helped me out with all their
capacities.
 INTRODUCTION
Educational Institutions are a crucial part in the sphere of every human being. The reason
being the importance of education & awareness. The question of issue of writs against
educational institutions arise from the very fact of individuals being associated with it. The
teachers, students and staffs form an educational institution, so they do have certain rights
associated with them being a part of that institution. The decisions of an educational
institution affects its students, teachers and staffs who would take recourse to law courts
almost as a first choice. The state engages actively in educational affairs, taking the
constitutional mandate into account. The Constitution, for instance, visualizes compulsory,
obligatory and free education. It stresses the responsibility of the state to have adequate
provisions to protect the right to work, education, etc.

Now the question arises that if such educational institutions come under the purview of the
term “State “ under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Changes in the education process
and awareness of the educational elite regarding their rights has resulted in a plethora of cases
relating to miscellaneous matters such as admissions, reservations, examinations, lack of
discipline among the students, services of the teachers & other staffs etc. The questions that
may arise in such cases may concern the protection of constitutional or other rights against
such bodies. If such fundamental rights of an individual is being violated, then the violator
must not go scot-free. The Courts over the years have interpreted whether or not any
fundamental rights are available against the educational institutions. The judicial
interpretations have been primarily situation-based.

Defining the term State as mentioned in the Article 12 of the Constitution of India:

“In this Part [Part III], unless the context otherwise requires, "the state" includes the
Government and Parliament of India and the Government and the Legislature of each of the
States and all local or other authorities within the territory of India or under the control of
the Government of India.”

As mentioned above, the aforementioned bodies or authorities come under the definition of
the term “State”. But the mention of the term “other authorities” makes Article 12
interpretative. It goes a long way is suggesting that the term “State” as mentioned in Article
12 has a much wider scope & nature. That it is not exhaustive rather inclusive in nature which
might include other authorities which may or may not be governmental in nature basing upon
the situation and the fundamental rights violated. To understand such a wider scope of the
term “State” & “Other Authorities” it is necessary to look at the interpretation of the framers
of Constitution. As described by Dr. Ambedkar, the object of this Article is to put citizens in
a position to claim for their fundamental rights in cases where it is violated by Government
authorities, & not only Central Government rather includes Provincial Government too. The
citizens should have the power to challenge any authority against the violation of their own
fundamental rights if such an authority has the decision-making power crucial to an
individual. Now it is quite evident that Article 12 was drafted in such a way to include all
those authorities which were established by law and have discretion to make rules and
regulations in its own discretion.

Judicial interpretation of the term “other authorities” has been situational and mostly included
those authorities which could be read ejusdem generis with the authorities mentioned in the
terminology of Article 12 under the Constitution of India. In the landmark judgements like
that of Sukhdev v. Bhagtram1although the Court considered the meaning of “other
authorities” as it is in the Article 12 of the Constitution & declared that Oil & Natural Gas
Corporation, Life Insurance Corporation & Indian Finance Corporation come under the
purview of the term “State” as the rules and regulations made by them have the force of law.
Thus the Court was of the view that these statutory bodies “authorities” under Article 12 of
the Constitution. Subsequently, in the Supreme Court judgement of Ramana Dayaram Shetty
v. The International Airport Authority of India 2, where the Hon’ble Court was dealing with
the question that whether International Airport Authority of India was a “state” under the
meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The Court in its decision laid down certain
tests involving the share capital, extent of State Control, monopoly status, public function etc
to determine if the Corporation is an instrumentality or agency of the Government. Finally,
the Court held that International Airport Authority of India was a body that was a agency or
instrumentality of Government thus it may be an “authority” under the purview of Article 12
of the Constitution of India. Likewise in many other landmark judgements Supreme Court
has tend to interpret Article 12 depending upon the prevailing circumstances which will be
discussed throughout this paper in reference to its analysis.

1
Sukhdev v. Bhagtram, AIR 1975 SC 1331.
2
Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. The International Airport Authority of India, AIR 1979 SC 1628.
This paper seeks to analyze the judicial interpretations of the law Courts over the years which
relates to the scope and authority of an educational institution under Article 12. The paper
shall elaborate on the lines of the functions performed by an educational institution and if or
not such functions can be categorized to be public ones, thus making the institution a public
body. Towards the end, the paper discusses the dilemma of the courts while issuing a writ of
Mandamus or Certiorari in such cases relating to educational bodies and also provides a
suggestive resolve to this issue.

WRITS FOR ENFORCEMENT OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AGAINST

EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS
Needless to mention that similar to Article 12, the term “educational institutions” also has a
wider scope and varied definition. It includes both colleges and universities within its ambit.
The basic difference between those two terms is that a university can grant degrees of its own
to its students but other institutions cannot.3 In India, universities are usually set up by the
Acts of Legislatures. This argument is strongly emphasised by the University Grants
Commission Act and it does not accept the idea of a private university. 4 It is further settled by
the law that it is a legislative entity and is appropriate for the courts' writ jurisdiction. 5
However for a long time, the issue of protection of fundamental rights against universities has
not been resolved. The status in this regard will be demonstrated by a reference to a few
rulings by the courts. However, the question of enforcement of fundamental rights against
universities was not settled for a long time. Referring to the definition of Article 12 of the
Constitution of India it is quite evident that the colleges which are owned and managed by the
Government come under the scope & ambit of the term “state”. But whether or not the other
universities which are statutory in nature and other non-statutory bodies come under the
purview of Article 12 has to be discussed in the paper. The status in this regard will be
demonstrated by a reference to a few rulings by the courts.

To begin with in the case of University of Madras v. Shanthabai 6, the University of Madras
had directed its affiliated colleges to not admit girl students without obtaining the permission
of the syndicate. Such a direction was challenged before the Court to be violative of Article
15(1) of the Constitution. The Madras High Court held that the expression “other authorities

3
Azeez Basha v. Union of India, AIR 1968 SC 662.
4
INDIA CONST. art. 12 (f).
5
Akshaibar Lai v. Vice-Chancellor, AIR 1961 SC 619.
6
University of Madras v. Shanthabai, AIR 1954 Mad. 67.
as mentioned in Article 12 should be construed ejusdem generis with the “government” or
“legislature”. Thus, that would suggest that it will only mean authorities exercising
governmental function. Thus, the Court held that University of Madras did not come under
the purview of the term “other authorities” under Article 12 stating the following reason:

“The University of Madras is a body corporate created by the Madras Act VII of 1923. It is
not charged with the execution of any Governmental functions; its purpose is purely to
promote education. Though Section 44 of the Act provides for financial contribution by the
local Government, the University is authorised to raise its own funds of income from fees,
endowments and the like. It is State- aided institution, but it is not maintained by the State.”

But such a restricted approach towards Article 12 was subsequently overruled in the famous
cases of Ujjambai v. State of Uttar Pradesh7, State Electricity Board, Rajasthan v. Mohanlal 8,
Devadas v. Karnataka Engineering College9, Krishan Gopal Sharma v. Punjab University 10.
The crux of the judgement in all the forementioned cases is that the rule of ejusdem generis
could not be applied because there was no genus common to the named bodies, nor could
they be placed in one single category on a rational basis. Consequently, it must include every
type of authority established under a statute for the purpose of administering laws enacted by
the Parliament or by the State including those vested with the duty to make decisions in order
to implement those laws thereby making them amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the Court.
It is immaterial to focus on the fact that some of these powers might be for the purpose of
carrying on commercial activities.

Since the meaning of the terms like “State” & “Other Authorities” have gained a wider scope
this is evidently large enough to include all bodies created by a statute on which powers are
conferred to carry out governmental or quasi-governmental functions. This generates some
uncertainty that all legislative and statutory bodies will not be subjected to the writ
jurisdiction rather only the bodies which will fulfill these characteristics. One of the facts that
the court seems to have recognized is the shift in the notion of state. The state works by its
instrumentality or agency and one of the government entities is the public corporation. The
emerging  principle appears to be that public corporation being a creation of the state  is
subject to the constitutional limitation as the state itself. Such a reasoning specifically
overrules Shantabai and other decisions and this has led to the  emergence of the view that a
7
Ujjambai v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1962 SC 1621.
8
State Electricity Board, Rajasthan v. Mohanlal AIR 1967 SC 18.
9
Devadas v. Karnatak Engineering College, AIR 1964 Mys. 6.
10
Krishan Gopal Sharma v. Punjab University, AIR 1966 Punj. 34.
university is an authority within the meaning of Article 12 and thereby implies enforcement
of fundamental rights against the universities.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Ashalata v. M. B. Vikram University 11held
that the phrase “local & other authorities” is wide enough to include universities maintained
out of state funds because the universities tend to function what may be called as
governmental functions and also it legislates and binds the conduct of the persons falling
under the statute. A similar view was observed by the Allahabad High Court in G. F. D.
College v. University of Agra12. Further, in the case of Umesh Kumar Sinha v. V. N . Singh 13,
it was held by the Patna High Court that University of Patna could be referred to as “state”
under the purview of Article 12. In the exercise of these powers, the laws made by the
university are within the definition of law as set out in Article 13(3) and must therefore
comply with fundamental rights. This was a case for admission and the university's ordinance
was challenged in violation of Article 14 as discriminatory. The court held that there was
ample justifiable interest in the part of the applicant to appeal to the Court for consideration
of the constitutional validity of the ordinance's offending provisions. It also struck down
some parts of the order regarding them as unconstitutional.

Therefore it is clear from the above decisions that under Article 12, legislative bodies such as
corporations and universities fall within the ambit & scope of the term "state." Yet today
there are different kinds of educational institutions operating. Private institutions registered
under the Societies Registration Act 1860, for example, can exist. A particular statute such as
a university Act can govern the constitution of such bodies. The question of these bodies has
come up in many cases before the courts. The earlier view seems to be that, although subject
to near governmental supervision, organizations such as a corporation registered under the
Societies Registration Act are not 'authorities' for the purposes of Article 12.

For example, in Sabhajit Tewary v. Union of India14, the issue was whether, within the
context of Article 12, an organization such as the Council of Science and Industrial Research
registered as a company under the Societies Registration Act can be considered as a
"authority." It was argued that some of the council's characteristics explicitly established that
it was actually a government entity. Its regulatory body comprised of, inter alia, some persons
appointed by the Government of India to serve the ministry under which the Council had
11
Ashalata v. M. B. Vikram University, AIR 1961 MP 299.
12
G. F. D. College v. University of Agra, AIR 1968 All 188.
13
Umesh Kumar Sinha v. V. N . Singh, AIR 1968 Pat 3.
14
Sabhajit Tewary v. Union of India, AIR 1975 SC 1329.
fallen. The government has been empowered to terminate at any time the membership of any
or all members. The Governing Body had the power to administer the Council's affairs and to
frame bye-laws with the Government of India's assent. In the rules applicable to the council,
all these provisions were made. Further, the Council came under the Science and Technology
Department under the Government of India (Allocation of Business) Rules in 1961. This case
was decided by the same bench as Sukhdev Singh15Case. But this time the Bench was of the
view that the characteristics of this Society were not similar to that of Oil & Natural Gas
Corporation. Rather it was society established under the Societies Registration Act.
According to the court, the characteristics of the above-mentioned council did not determine
anything more than the fact that the Government takes special precautions that the
membership, guidance and coordination of scientific and industrial research, the institution
and financing of specific research, the use of the results of the research carried out under the
auspices of the Council in the direction of the Council towards the development of industries
in the country are carried out in a reasonable manner.

The inference from the above decision is obvious that a non-statutory body is not an authority
however dominating the government's control might be over it. It is a matter of common
practise that more and more non-statutory bodies are being set up and the government
delegates its power to these bodies. These bodies dispose of some of the governmental
functions. The question is: should a non-statutory body, on the basis of the government's
control over it be regarded as an authority? It may be argued that a non-statutory body may
not normally be an authority. In certain circumstances, however when the government has
control over it or has an intimate relationship with it, the non-statutory body may in
accordance with Article 12, become an authority. There is always a well-founded suspicion
that if non-statutory bodies are not treated as an authority, regardless of the circumstances,
the government would be gradually inclined to follow the non-statutory framework and avoid
the establishment of statutory bodies to maximise private space in which individuals will be
free to pursue their own conceptions of good. Also, individual freedom must be given due
importance and all the private actions should not be subjected to justification owing to
violation of Fundamental Rights as thill will make the functioning of State very difficult.

Another example that might be considered here is the case of Satimbla Sharma &
Organization. v. St. Paul Senior Secondary School 16 wherein the question was whether an

15
Id. at 1.
16
Satimbla Sharma & Organization. v. St. Paul Senior Secondary School, AIR 2011 SC 2926.
unaided minority institution will be considered as “state” under the ambit of Article 12 of the
Constitution. The Supreme Court held that the unaided private minority schools over which
the government has no administrative control because of their autonomy under Article 30(1)
of the Constitution are not State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India.
Therefore, the teachers of the school cannot challenge the school for being violative of their
right to equality under Article 14 as the such a right to equality is available against the State
and it cannot be claimed against the unaided private minority schools. Therefore, the unaided
private minority schools are not state under the meaning of Article 36 read with Article 12 of
the Constitution and as the obligation to ensure equal pay for equal work under Article 39(d)
is on the state, a private unaided minority school is under no obligation to ensure equal pay
for equal work.

As it can be seen above the Court here had a reasonable justification for not including private
minority unaided schools in the meaning of Article 12. But what has to be focussed on is the
point of “Government having no administrative control” which was one of the various factors
laid down by Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib17in determining whether a body is an agency of the
state or not. The various factors were as follows:

 If the entire share capital of the body is held by the government, it goes a long way
towards indicating that the body is an instrumentality of the government.
 If the functions performed by the body are of public importance and closely related to
governmental functions, it is a relevant factor to treat the body as an instrumentality of the
government.
 Enjoys monopoly status that is state conferred.
 Deep & pervasive state control.
 Functions are of public importance & closely related to governmental functions.

Here the question was whether a college of engineering set up and run by a society registered
under the Jammu and Kashmir Registration of Societies Act 1898 was a 'state' under Article
12. It was observed that the College fulfilled all of the above mentioned tests in terms of
governmental control, final assistance etc and was thus declared to be an instrumentality or
agency of the government irrespective of its genetical origin. Therefore, it was held to be an
“authority” under the purview of Article 12. There was also enough material in this
judgement to support the proposition that if its relationship with the government was such as

17
Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib, AIR 1981 SC 487.
to characterise it as an instrumentality of the government, a non-statutory body may be
treated as an authority. Ajay Hasia's ratio decidendi has subsequently been applied to many
cases and the courts have held that "state" is private educational institutions such as state
medical college including dental college18, private medical college19 and Indian Statistical
Institute.20 For this reason, they have studied the provisions of the Act in which the colleges
work. However if a college does not meet the requirements set out in Ajay Hasia, it has been
determined that it is not merely an instrumentality or agency of the state pursuant to the
provisions of the 1956 Indian Medical Council Act or association with a university.21

ESSENTIALITY OF “PUBLIC FUNCTION TEST”

Another important aspect of determining whether a body is an instrumentality or agency of
the government is to determine if it performs a public function or not. It may be amenable to
the writ jurisdiction depending on the other circumstances of the situation. Usually, an
university is established under a statute. But as can be seen from some of the forementioned
decisions Courts have presented different views and opinions but as a general rule, they have
laid down that statutory bodies can be subject to writ jurisdictions. Therefore, a university
being established under a statute can be subjected to the writ jurisdiction of the High Courts
or Supreme Courts. Also, government managed colleges are invariably amenable to the writ
jurisdiction because they are public authorities. But the law is quite ambiguous & unclear
when it comes to the writ jurisdiction of private educational institutions like deemed
universities or private affiliated colleges.

One such matter was found by the court in Vidya Ram Misra v. S.J.N. College 22 and it
decided that, as it is not a statutory body, a private associated college is not subject to the
High Courts' written jurisdiction. This was a scenario in conjunction with the termination of
the services of a private college teacher associated with the University of Lucknow. It was
regulated by the applicable laws and ordinances set out in the terms of the 1920 Lucknow
University Act and thus it was claimed that under Article 226, the termination of teacher
services would draw jurisdiction from the High Court. However the Supreme Court
dismissed the above-mentioned claim on the ground that in the present case, the teacher's
service was regulated by a contract between himself and the managing committee. In
18
Samir Kumar Das v. State of Bihar , AIR 1982 Pat 66.
19
Anitha Chandraiah v. Selection Committee , AIR 1981 NOC 217 (Kant).
20
B.S . Minhas v. Indian Statistical Institute , AIR 1984 SC 363.
21
Gurpreet Singh v. Punjab University , AIR 1983 Punj & Har 70.
22
Vidya Ram Misra v. S.J.N. College, AIR 1972 SC 1450.
addition, the committee was not a legislative entity and thus if the teacher's services were
terminated, the teacher would have a recourse by way of suit and not by means of a writ.

It also creates an inconsistency that universities and government schools, but not affiliated
colleges, should be subject to the High Courts' writ jurisdiction. Affiliated colleges have the
same rights as the other two groups and discharge the same duties. In addition, they receive
large grants from the government, and this discrimination between these colleges is therefore
not necessary. In Vaish Degree College v. Lakshmi Narain 23, the Supreme Court has again
reiterated its opinion. The court here has ruled that the executive of a  university-
affiliated college cannot be considered as a statutory body. A statutory body is one which is
created and owes its life to a law by or under a statute. If, as such, an agency is not created by
or under a statute but is regulated solely by those statutory provisions, it is not a statutory
entity. The court also held that the college would not become a statutory entity by simply
affiliating a college to a university and following the provisions of the Act and university
statutes. The decision here is consistent with what the court has previously(Sabhajit Tewary
Case) held.

It should be noted that in the light of Ajay Hasia, the above law is significantly modified. If
these colleges meet the requirements set out in this case by the Supreme Court, e.g. pervasive
governmental regulation and/or full government funding, they can be deemed "state" Even
before Ajay Hasia, a few courts had ruled that the writ jurisdiction was available to private
colleges and universities. The courts were more liberal for the purposes of granting the writ
of mandamus. In general, a private institution that is expected to discharge statutory duty is
amenable to the mandamus writ. The court, however has been cautious in issuing the
certiorari's writ. This is shown by the citation of few decisions on the point.

In two important decisions, the Delhi High Court has followed the above view. In Amir-
Jamia v. Desharath Raj24, for breaching its natural justice rules and regulations and values, the
court issued a letter to Jamia Millia Islamia. In this case, the body was a corporation
incorporated under the Act of Registration of Societies. Under section 3 of the University
Grants Commission Act, it was an educational institution operating underneath the category
of' deemed university.' The effect of the statement was that it became applicable to the Act.
The authority was therefore allowed to exercise the right to grant degrees. Consequently, it
was held that the institution was a public authority to which mandamus could be issued.
23
Vaish Degree College v. Lakshmi Narain, AIR 1976 SC 888.
24
Amir-Jamia v. Desharath Raj, ILR (1969) Del 202.
In Kumkum v. Principal, Jessus and Mary College 25, the Delhi High Court took a similar
view, where the question was whether a writ against the principal of a private college
recognised by the University of Delhi was maintainable. The Court was of the view that:

“[M]andamus lies to secure the "performance of a public or statutory duty. It is, however,
not necessary that the person or the authority on whom the statutory duty is imposed need be
a public official  or as an official body. A mandamus can be issued , for instance , to an
official  of a society to compel him to carry out the terms of the statute under or by which the
society is constituted.”

It is well recognised that if he exercises a public or statutory power or does a public or

statutory duty, mandamus may be given against an individual. In the case above the
associated college was admitted to the university's rights and ceased to be a private
institution. It became a public authority and a public office, the office of the principal.
According to the court, the terms 'individual' and 'authority' used in Article 226 were
sufficiently broad to include the principal of a private college, and his conduct was subject to
mandamus and certiorari when he exercised his statutory duty, authority and discretion under
the ordinances framed under the Act. Likewise, in G. Misra v. Orissa Association of Sanskrit
Learning and Culture26, the Odisha High Court held that the Sanskrit council was a public
authority formed by the state government's resolution in the education department to conduct
examinations and publish results. While not statutory, the duty performed by the council was
a public duty and an examinee had ample legal interest in the performance of the duty by the
council. The writ of mandamus must then lie against it. The above view seems to have been
followed by the Allahabad High Court27 and Kerala High Court28. A private college has some
responsibilities and duties when associated with a university, which fall within the domain of
statutory obligations and duties. Furthermore the fact that funding from state funds is
obtained by the college ensures that it will not remain "private" but has a public personality.

In the latest judgement of Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Janet Jeyapaul v. SRM
University29, it was held that SRM University regardless of being a “Deemed University” was
amenable to the writ jurisdiction of High Court under the Article 226 of the Constitution

25
Kumkum v. Principal, Jessus and Mary College AIR 1976 Del 35.
26
G. Misra v. Orissa Association of Sanskrit Learning and Culture AIR 1971 Ori 212.
27
Colvin Taluqdars College v. Chandra Mohan, AIR 1978 All 93.
28
Achamma Thomas v. Principal , St. Teresa’ s College, 1971 Ker LT 788.
29
Dr. Janet Jeyapaul v. SRM University, AIR 2016 SC 73.
because it was constituted for and engaged in performing public functions by the way of
imparting education.

Also, in the case of Dr. Anjana Vyas v. National Law University, Jodhpur 30, the Rajasthan
High Court rejected NLU Jodhpur’s contention of being an autonomous body not receiving
any financial aid from the government. The Court further held that an educational institution
discharges public function by the way of imparting education to the students and therefore
these are amenable to the writ jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution.

Thus, the Courts have interpreted the term “other authorities” quite widely and keeping in
view the importance of public function. The emerging principle is that public corporation
being the creation of a State are subject to constitutional limitations as the State itself. But at
the same time there are private and non-state bodies discharging important quasi-
governmental or public functions which have effects and repercussions on the life and
welfare of the public community. Thus, there ought to be some kind of governmental control
on these bodies. According to Article 13(2), any law made by the State which violates any
Fundamental Right becomes void ab initio. Thus, Article 13(2) effectively ensures that no
Fundamental Right can be infringed by the state either by legislative or administrative
actions.

CONCLUSION
30
Dr. Anjana Vyas v. National Law University Jodhpur, MANU 461 RH 2019.
Protection of basic human rights has always been of foremost importance under the Indian
Constitution. Evidently, no such law made by the State or the State bodies cannot take away
the rights and privileges of an individual. Although, the Courts have been very considerate
while issuing mandamus wherever and whenever required depending upon the urgency of the
circumstances. At the same time, the Courts have been straight forward while not issuing the
writ of certiorari against the private bodies in matters relating to termination of services of
teachers and other staff members. Another position held by the Courts tends to be that the
principle of state action does not apply to the conduct of a private person or institution unless,
under such rules, the individual or institution acts in dressing the private action with the
essence of a state action. Some instances where the Courts have applied such a reasoning are
Vidyodaya University v. Silva31, Subhadra Devi v. Andhra Girls College32, Harijander Singh
v. Kakatiya Medical College33. The matters were mostly relating to the termination of
services of the teachers by private institutions. Therefore, a privately owned and privately
managed non-statutory institution is outside the range of the writ of certiorari.
In the course of evolution, administrative law relating to writs is being interpreted to bring
more and more bodies within their reach to enforce fundamental rights, the courts have
expanded their scope. The view that certiorari or mandamus can be given to non-statutory
bodies conducting administrative or legislative functions is gaining ground. Ajay Hasia's
decision is a pointer in this direction and expands the jurisdiction of the courts over different
types of educational institutions by putting them in the light of Article 12. Many authors have
preferred to equate such tools with the government and regard their behaviour as state action.
As regards the issuance of claims against educational institutions for other reasons, a liberal
view is being followed by the courts. They drew a distinction between a legislative body and
a public body and concluded that writs against public bodies could be issued. In addition, if a
college follows the conditions laid down by the Supreme Court, it may be considered as a
state in the light of the Ajay Hasia decision. This is a positive development and is likely to
provide a suitable solution to the growing issue of issuing litigation against educational
institutions.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
31
Vidyodaya University v. Silva, (1964) 3 All ER 865 (PC).
32
Subhadra Devi v. Andhra Girls College, (1973) 1 Andh WR 94.
33
Harijander Singh v. Kakatiya Medical College, AIR 1975 AP 35.
BOOKS

(1) D.D. BASU, INTRODUCTION TO CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (20th edn, Lexis Nexis 2011).
(2) V.N. SHUKLA, CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (10th edn., Eastern Book Co. 2001).

JOURNAL ARTICLES

(1) Dean Oliver A. Harker, The Use of Mandamus to Compel Educational Institutions to
Confer Degrees 20(5) THE YALE LAW JOURNAL 341, 352 (1911).
(2) Ramaswamy R. Iyer, Public Enterprises as State & Article 12 24(34) ECONOMIC &
POLITICAL WEEKLY 129, 134 (1990).
(3) Shubhankar Dam, Unburdening the Constitution: What has Indian Constitution got to do
with Private Universities, Modernity & Nation-States 1(1) SINGAPORE JOURNAL OF

LEGAL STUDIES 108, 147 (2006).

(4) Elizabeth C. Wright, Courts & Universities The Impact of Litigation on University
Autonomy 27(1) JOURNAL OF THE INDIAN LAW INSTITUTE 35, 60 (1985).
(5) E. G. H. The Right of an Expelled or Rejected Student to a Writ of Mandamus 70(4) THE
UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA LAW REVIEW 303, 308 (1922).
(6) Isaac A. Pennypacker, Mandamus to Restore Academic Privilege 12(8) VIRGINIA LAW
REVIEW 645, 652 (1926).
(7) U. R. Rai, Reach of Fundamental Rights 36(3) JOURNAL OF THE INDIAN LAW INSTITUTE
292, 301 (1994)
(8) D. Sharma (2008), The Clear Sky: Interpreting Article 12 through Pradeep Kumar
Biswas & ORS v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology & ORS 1(1) INDIAN INSTITUTE OF
CHEMICAL BIOLOGY 308-316 (2008).
(9) S. Sabhapandit, Article 12 and Judicial Review of Administrative Action: An Analysis
2(1) INDIAN LAW REVIEW 5-25 (2018).

WEB SOURCES

(1) S. Balganesh, The constitutionalization of Indian private law (2016).

(2) M. Poddar, Definition of the state and the enforcement of fundamental rights under the
constitution of India (Doctoral dissertation, University of North Bengal (2008).
(3) A. Pathak, Dr. Janet Jeyapaul v. SRM university: Private organisations and public rights.
Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad (2017).
(4) A. Pathak, The Ajay Hasia Case: Society and the Fundamental Rights, Indian Institute of
Management Ahmedabad (2017).