Private educational institutions performing public duties subject to judicial review under Article 226

The Allahabad HC held that private educational institutions, whether aided or unaided, perform public duty by supplementing the State's role in imparting education. Such institutions are amenable to judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution, as they discharge public functions despite being private entities. The Court clarified that Article 226 jurisdiction extends beyond statutory authorities to any body performing public duty. While mere recognition or affiliation doesn't make educational institutions State instrumentalities, their role in advancing learning constitutes a State function requiring fair conduct. The Full Bench reference was answered affirmatively, establishing that private educational bodies performing public duties fall within writ jurisdiction.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether private institutions imparting education perform public duty, a State function, making them amenable to judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
2. Whether the Full Bench decision rendered in M.K. Gandhi and Division Bench judgment in Anjani Kumar Srivastava requires to be revisited in view of the Supreme Court decision rendered in Ramesh Ahluwalia.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Whether private institutions imparting education perform public duty, a State function, making them amenable to judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The judgment begins by examining the nature of private educational institutions and their functions. It notes that Saint Francis School, a Christian Minority Institution, is registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, and affiliated with the Council for the Indian School Certificate Examinations, New Delhi. The petitioner, an assistant teacher, challenged his termination as arbitrary and in violation of service conditions.

A preliminary objection was raised regarding the maintainability of the writ petition under Article 226 against a private educational institution, referencing the Full Bench decision in M.K. Gandhi, which held that Delhi Public School was not the 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution. However, the Supreme Court in Ramesh Ahluwalia held that even purely private bodies performing public duties are amenable to judicial review under Article 226.

The judgment discusses the scope and ambit of Article 12 and Article 226 of the Constitution. Article 12 defines 'State' to include the Government of India, Parliament, Government of the State, Legislatures of the States, local authorities, and 'other authorities'. The interpretation of 'other authorities' has evolved to include bodies performing governmental or quasi-governmental functions. The judgment cites various cases, including Sukhdev Singh and Pradeep Kumar Biswas, which expanded the definition to include bodies financially, functionally, and administratively dominated by the government.

Article 226 empowers High Courts to issue writs for enforcement of fundamental rights and non-fundamental rights against 'any person or authority' and 'for any other purpose'. The term 'authority' in Article 226 is interpreted more liberally than in Article 12, covering any person or body performing public duty. The Supreme Court in Anadi Mukta held that the nature of the duty imposed on the body is determinative, not its form.

The judgment further explores the concept of public duty and public function, noting that private bodies performing essential governmental functions are subject to judicial review. It references cases like Binny Ltd. and Federal Bank Ltd., which discuss the public law element in private actions.

The judgment concludes that private educational institutions, including those not receiving government aid, perform public duties by supplementing the state's efforts in imparting education. This public duty makes them amenable to judicial review under Article 226. The Supreme Court's decision in SRM University affirmed that institutions imparting higher education perform public functions and are subject to judicial review.

Issue 2: Whether the Full Bench decision rendered in M.K. Gandhi and Division Bench judgment in Anjani Kumar Srivastava requires to be revisited in view of the Supreme Court decision rendered in Ramesh Ahluwalia.

The Full Bench in M.K. Gandhi held that Delhi Public School was not a 'State' under Article 12, and thus, writ petitions against it were not maintainable. However, it directed the CBSE to take action against the school for violating affiliation bylaws. The Supreme Court criticized this direction, stating that no writ lies against a private school not considered a 'State'.

In Anjani Kumar Srivastava, the Division Bench, despite acknowledging Ramesh Ahluwalia, declined to interfere, citing the private nature of the contract between the master and servant. The judgment in Ms. Geeta Pushp also declined writ jurisdiction for enforcing service contracts against private institutions.

The judgment concludes that the broad principles of law in M.K. Gandhi and Anjani Kumar Srivastava are confined to their specific facts and do not establish a general rule that private educational institutions do not render public functions and are not amenable to judicial review. Therefore, these judgments do not require revisiting.

Conclusion:

The judgment answers the reference in the following terms:
1. Private institutions imparting education perform public duties, a State function, and are amenable to judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
2. The principles in M.K. Gandhi and Anjani Kumar Srivastava are specific to their facts and do not require revisiting.

The writ petition is to be placed before the regular Bench for disposal in light of these answers.

---