LEGAL METHODS SEMESTER-1

I YEAR BCOM.LLB. (HONS)- RESEARCH PROJECT

AJAY HASIA V. KHALID MUJIB, (1981) 1 SCC 722

TAMIL NADU NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, TIRUCHIRAPALLI

SUBMITTED BY
PAVAN B (BC0230034)

SUBMITTED TO

MR. VASISHTAN P
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF LAW
TAMIL NADU NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY
DECLARATION

I, Pavan B hereby declare that this Research Paper/Research Project work titled Case
Law Review on Ajay Hasia V Khalid Mujib & Ors. has been originally carried out by
me under the guidance and supervision of P. Vashishtan, Assistant Professor of 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

Date: 22nd August 2024.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
At the outset, I would like to take this opportuinity by thanking Mr. P. Vasishtan, Assistant
Professor of Law for providing me with a topic and being available at all moments to
constantly provide guidance and help.

Secondly, I express my deep gratitude to the Vice Chancellor and the entire
administrative staff of Tamil Nadu National Law University, who supported the project
by providing trustworthy and reliable information in the form of library infrastructure and
internet connections as much as their capacity permitted them.

At Last, I thank the Lord and friends for having stimulating discussions with regard to the
topic and giving me the confidence and energy to overcome all obstacles while working
on this project. I would also want to thank everyone who was directly or indirectly
engaged in the creation of this project and those I might have missed.
TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION
The Ajay Hasia case is a flagship case in the history of the Indian Constitution, and the judgment
passed in this case is regarded as a landmark judgment in the history of constitutional law and its
approach. It clarifies the concept that any body's mere possession of statutory power does not
meet the requirements to be classified as a state. Since there is no exemption from the law, and
Fundamental Rights can be claimed against the State, it is important to define what constitutes a
state.

In this case, the constitutionality of the admissions to the Regional Engineering College, Srinagar
for the 1979–1980 academic year was contested in the writ petitions filed under Article 32 of the
Constitution.

The decision of the case had significant implications in India.

CASE DETAILS
1. FULL CASE NAME: AJAY HASIA ETC. V. KHALID MUJIB SEHRAVARDI
& ORS. [1981 AIR 487]
2. PETITIONER: AJAY HASIA
3. RESPONDENT: KHALID MUJIB SEHRAVARDI & ORS.
4. ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER:
5. ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT:
6. CORAM:
Justice P.N. Bhagwati, Justice Y.V. Chandrachud, Justice Krishnaiyer, Justice
Fazalali, Justice Syed Murtaza, Justice A.D. Koshal.
7. DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 13/11/1980
8. MAJOR ACTS AND SECTIONS: Article 32, Article 12 and Article 14 of the
Indian Constitution, Society Registration Act of 1860, The Jammu and Kashmir
Registration of Societies Act of 1898, The Companies Act 1956.

FACTS OF THE CASE

 In the date of April 1979, the Regional Engineering College issued a notice inviting
applications for admission to the first semester of the B.E. course in various
 different branches of engineering with the admission procedure consisting of a
written examination of 100 marks and a viva voce of 50 marks.1
 The petitioners contented that the interview or viva voce for each person did not
last more than three minutes on average, where questions were largely limited to
one’s parentage and residence instead of relevant questions to the examination that
actually challenged the intellect of the candidates.
 Later, at the time of the results being announced, it was observed that many who
obtained fantastic marks in the qualifying written examination had not been able to
secure a seat in the college because the marks awarded to the candidates in the viva
voce turned out to be very low and vice versa i.e. those candidates that scored very
low in the written examination, scored very high in the viva voce and secured
admission in the college.
 By way of comparison of these marks obtained by various candidates, the
petitioners challenged the very validity of this admission or selection procedure of
the candidates in the college and thereby filed a writ petition under the Article 32
of the Constitution of India claiming that candidates by this way of admission are
denied the Right to Equality.
ISSUES
1. Whether the Regional Engineering College is a “State” as defined in Article 12?
2. Whether the Selection Procedure was violative of Article 14 of the Indian
Constitution?
SUBMISSION OF PETITIONERS
SUBMISSION OF RESPONDENTS
CONCEPTS EXPLORED
OTHER ITERATIONS OF THE CASE

PRECEDENTIAL VALUE

1
Cite the judgement
The cases below were also used in the submissions used to contest the case in the Court.

SOM PRAKASH V. UNION OF INDIA2

The Court determined that BHARAT PETROL PUMP, a government-owned business, was
included in the interpretation of the State's usage of language in Article 12 of the Constitution of
India. According to the Court, all statutory authorities that have been granted authority to engage
in commercial activity are included in the expression of other authorities. Furthermore, it was
decided that the term "other authorities" does not just refer to statutory corporations but also to
government-affiliated businesses, registered societies, and other organizations with a connection
to or interaction with the government.

U.P. WAREHOUSING CORPORATION V. VIJAY NARAIN3

In this case, it was decided that the company qualifies as a state for the purposes of Article 12 as
it was established by a government-managed statute and the State is the rightful owner. In his
separate justice's opinion, Justice Chinnapa Reddy summarized the situation by saying that the
state's role and standing have entirely changed.

It is a welfare state, and as such, there have been numerous increases in government activity.
Numerous facets of residents' lives have been impacted by its actions. Any corporation that is
owned, controlled, or utilized by the government, as well as any of its agencies or
instrumentalities, is considered an authority under Article 12.

R.D. SHETTY V. INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY4

In this case, the court established the standard for figuring out if an organization is an agency or
an instrument of the state. The examination is:

1. The State owns or manages the whole share capital; that is, the primary source of funding is
the State's financial resources.
2. It has monopolistic status, whether granted by the state or maintained by it.
3. When a government agency is moved to a business.
4. A functional character that is fundamentally governmental, that is, if the corporation's
operations are significant to the general public and closely align with governmental operations.
5. The widespread and profound state control that exists.

SARABJIT TEWARY V. UNION OF INDIA5

Here, the court noted that in this instance, the bodies that are not integrated by a statue
2
Som Prakash judgement
3
Up warehousing case judgement
4
Rd Shetty case judgement
5
Cite sarabjit judgemnet
 and are deemed not to be states under Article 12 of the Constitution because they are registered
under the Companies Act of 1956 and the Societies Registration Act of 1860. It would be
impossible to classify these as government departments.

However, this judgement was later reversed in PRADEEP KUMAR BISWAS V. THE
INSTITUTE OF SHEMICAL BIOLOGY.6

CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE CASE

JUDGEMENT
The composition of the Society was dominated by the representatives appointed by the Central
Government and the Governments of Jammu & Kashmir, Punjab, Rajasthan, and Uttar Pradesh
with approval from the Central Government. Therefore, the Honorable Supreme Court held that
with regard to the Memorandum of Association and the Rules of the Society, the respondent
college was a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution.

The Central Government and the Government of Jammu & Kashmir supplied all of the funding
needed to operate the college; even if the Society was to obtain any additional funding, it could

be carried out only with the Central and State Governments' consent. The State and Central
Governments had to give their prior consent before the Society could make any rules.

The Central Government, as well as the State Government, had complete authority over the
operation of the Society due to the permission provision. As a result, the society was designated
as a "authority" in accordance with Article 12 of the Constitution and described as an instrument
or agency of the State and Central Governments.

CONCLUSION

6
Cite eversed judgement