TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court: ICID not 'State' for writ jurisdiction under Article 226</h1> <h3>K.K. Saksena Versus International Commission on Irrigation and Drainage & ors.</h3> K.K. Saksena Versus International Commission on Irrigation and Drainage & ors. - 2015 (4) SCC 670, 2014 (14) JT 257, 2014 (14) SCALE 384 Issues Involved:1. Maintainability of the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution against ICID.2. Whether ICID qualifies as a 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution.3. Whether ICID performs public functions or public duties making it amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226.Detailed Analysis:Maintainability of the Writ Petition under Article 226:The primary issue was the maintainability of the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against ICID. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that ICID is not a 'State' under Article 12 and does not perform public functions or duties to be amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226. The appellant challenged this decision, arguing that ICID performs public duties and should be subject to judicial review under Article 226.ICID as a 'State' under Article 12:The High Court examined the Constitution and bye-laws of ICID and concluded that ICID is not a 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution. The Court noted that ICID is a non-governmental organization with no pervasive governmental control, financial, functional, or administrative. The High Court applied the tests laid down by the Supreme Court in Ajay Hasia and Pradeep Kumar Biswas, concluding that ICID does not qualify as an instrumentality or agency of the State. The appellant conceded this point during the hearing before the Supreme Court.Public Functions or Public Duties:The appellant argued that ICID performs public duties, making it amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226. The High Court, however, found that ICID's functions, such as research, data collection, and promoting irrigation techniques, do not amount to public duties or functions similar to those performed by the State in its sovereign capacity. The activities of ICID were deemed voluntary and not intrinsically public in nature.The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's reasoning, stating that ICID's functions are not akin to State functions and do not involve a public law element. The Court emphasized that even if a body performs public duties, not all its decisions are subject to judicial review. Only those decisions with a public element can be reviewed under writ jurisdiction.The Court further clarified that ICID is a private body with no State funding or statutory obligations to discharge public functions. Therefore, it does not fall within the categories of private bodies amenable to writ jurisdiction as outlined in Federal Bank Ltd. v. Sagar Thomas.Conclusion:The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's judgment, holding that ICID is not a 'State' under Article 12 and does not perform public duties making it amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226. The appeal was dismissed, and the Court found no merit in the appellant's arguments.
TaxTMI 