Supreme Court: Private Bodies Like IBPS Not Subject to Writ Jurisdiction

The Supreme Court upheld the decision that the Respondent, Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (IBPS), is not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 as it does not qualify as "State" under Article 12 and does not discharge public functions. The Court emphasized that private bodies like IBPS, engaged in voluntary activities without performing public duties akin to state actions, are not subject to writ jurisdiction. The appeal was dismissed due to the Appellant's failure to provide the necessary caste certificate within the stipulated timeframe and lack of participation in subsequent recruitments, weakening his case for relief.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the Writ Petition against the Respondent under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
2. Whether the Respondent falls under the definition of "State" under Article 12 of the Constitution of India.
3. Whether the Respondent discharges public functions or duties.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of the Writ Petition against the Respondent under Article 226 of the Constitution of India:

The High Court dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the Appellant on the grounds that the Respondent was not a "State" under Article 12 of the Constitution and did not discharge any public functions. The Supreme Court upheld this decision, stating that the Respondent, Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (IBPS), is not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226. The Court emphasized that the term "authority" in Article 226 must receive a liberal interpretation, but the Respondent does not perform public duties or functions akin to state actions. The Court referred to the judgments in *Andi Mukta Sadguru S.M.V.S.S.J.M.S.T. v. V.R. Rudani* and *Federal Bank v. Sagar Thomas* to support the view that private bodies performing voluntary activities are not subject to writ jurisdiction unless they discharge public duties.

2. Whether the Respondent falls under the definition of "State" under Article 12 of the Constitution of India:

The Appellant argued that the Respondent should be considered "State" under Article 12 due to deep and pervasive government control. The Respondent was established by the National Institute of Bank Management and is registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The governing body includes members from the Reserve Bank of India and various public sector banks. However, the Supreme Court found that the Respondent is not financially, functionally, or administratively dominated by the government. The Court referred to the 7 Judge Bench decision in *Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology* to conclude that the Respondent does not fall under the definition of "State" as it lacks pervasive government control.

3. Whether the Respondent discharges public functions or duties:

The Appellant contended that the Respondent discharges public functions by conducting recruitment for public sector banks. The Supreme Court disagreed, noting that conducting recruitment tests is not a public duty. The Respondent's activities are voluntary and not imposed by statute. The Court cited *G. Bassi Reddy v. International Crops Research Institute* and *K.K. Saksena v. International Commission on Irrigation & Drainage* to emphasize that the nature of the duty, not the form of the body, determines whether it performs public functions. The Court concluded that the Respondent does not discharge public functions and is not subject to writ jurisdiction under Articles 32 or 226.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Respondent is not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 as it does not qualify as "State" under Article 12 and does not discharge public functions. The Appellant's failure to produce the required caste certificate within the specified period led to his disqualification, and his non-participation in subsequent recruitments further weakened his case for relief.

---