2003 (2) TMI 496 - SC - Indian Laws

International organization ICRISAT immune from suit under Article 226

G. Bassi Reddy Versus International Crops Research Instt. & Anr.

The Supreme Court affirmed that ICRISAT, as an international organization, was immune from being sued under Article 226 due to a Notification issued under ... - Issues Involved:1. Immunity of ICRISAT from being sued under Article 226.2. Whether ICRISAT qualifies as a 'State' or authority under Article 12.3. Applicability of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 to ICRISAT.4. Contractual nature of employment and enforceability of contractual rights through writ petitions.5. Compliance with procedural fairness and natural justice in disciplinary actions.Summary:1. Immunity of ICRISAT from being sued under Article 226:The High Court held that ICRISAT was an international organization immune from being sued due to a Notification issued in 1972 u/s 3 of the United Nations (Privileges and Immunities) Act, 1947. The Supreme Court affirmed this, stating that the immunity granted to ICRISAT under the 1947 Act was valid and that a writ under Article 226 could not be issued to ICRISAT.2. Whether ICRISAT qualifies as a 'State' or authority under Article 12:The Supreme Court examined whether ICRISAT could be considered a 'State' or authority under Article 12. It concluded that ICRISAT did not fulfill the criteria as it was not set up by the Government, was not controlled by the Government, and its financial contribution from the Indian Government was minimal. Therefore, ICRISAT was not a 'State' or authority under Article 12.3. Applicability of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 to ICRISAT:The Court held that a writ under Article 226 lies only when the petitioner establishes that his or her fundamental right or some other legal right has been infringed. Since ICRISAT is not a statutory body nor does it perform a public function or discharge a public or statutory duty, a writ under Article 226 could not be issued against it.4. Contractual nature of employment and enforceability of contractual rights through writ petitions:The Court noted that the appellants had a contractual relationship with ICRISAT and any right or obligation between the two parties was purely contractual in nature. It reiterated that a writ petition under Article 226 cannot be resorted to in order to enforce a contractual right, and no writ would lie to quash an order terminating a contract of service, albeit illegally, unless the order was made by a statutory body acting in breach of a mandatory obligation imposed by a statute.5. Compliance with procedural fairness and natural justice in disciplinary actions:The Court found that the disciplinary actions taken against the appellants were in accordance with the procedural rules framed by ICRISAT, which were fair and in keeping with the domestic law. The Personnel Policy Statement framed by ICRISAT dealing with internal discipline was in terms of clause 6 (2) of the March agreement, and it was not shown how these guidelines deviated from or did not approximate to the established disciplinary procedures followed by other private concerns in the country.Conclusion:The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, holding that ICRISAT was immune from being sued under Article 226, was not a 'State' or authority under Article 12, and that the contractual nature of employment did not warrant the issuance of a writ under Article 226. The disciplinary actions taken were found to be in compliance with procedural fairness and natural justice.