India’s citizens are guaranteed the preservation of their fundamental rights under Part III of the constitution. Since the State may be sued for violating fundamental rights, it is crucial to define what the State is. The seminal case of ajay hasia v khalid mujib clarifies the circumstances in which a body is covered by article 12 of indian constitution. It makes clear that a body’s sheer possession of statutory authority does not qualify it as a state. Only when the authority/body is totally dependent on the government for its functioning and the government has extensive and all-encompassing control over it would it be considered a state.
ajay hasia v khalid mujib Case Facts
- The issue concerns Regional Engineering College, Srinagar, one of the 15 colleges located within Jammu and Kashmir’s union territory that are established and run under the heading “societies” and are therefore subject to government oversight.
- The j&k registration of societies act of 1898 governs the registration of these societies. All administrative and management tasks are either directly or indirectly governed by the state.
- The J&K state government and the federal government work together to supply all of the funds. The government’s representatives are the only ones who recruit college faculty and other staff; in most cases, this means that the faculty is made up of government representatives or appointees.
- The current situation resulted from a writ petition that the aforementioned petitioners filed in an attempt to utilize Article 32 against the college administrators, who they said were acting on behalf of “the state.”
- According to their submissions, they responded to the college administration’s notification of admission process openings by applying for admission to the B.E. course at the aforementioned college.
- They argued, therefore, that the admission process and the ensuing findings are invalid because they lack substance.
- The petitioner argued that the system, which included a qualifying examination worth 100 marks and a vice voce examination worth 50 marks, was unfairly applied against them.
- The petitioners, who received higher qualifying marks than the currently admitted applicants, were admitted purely on the basis of the vice voce examination, which accounts for nearly half of the qualifying examination.
- It is alleged that the college authorities have unfairly decided the examination results on both levels of the examination. As the petitioners say, the vice voce exam, or interview round, lasted only two or three minutes and consisted of questions that had nothing to do with the course that was admitted.
- As a result, the test cannot be considered a valid means of evaluating admissions. Numerous concerns surfaced over the petitioners’ maintainability and the credibility of the admission process.
ajay hasia v khalid mujib Issues
- Is the aforementioned college covered by article 12 of Indian constitution’s definition of a state, and hence, is the writ maintainable?
- Do the petitioners’ claims that the college’s admissions process violates Article 14 hold water?
Contentions by the Parties
Petitioner:
- The petitioners in ajay hasia v khalid mujib sought to overturn the Regional Engineering College’s categorization in Srinagar, arguing that it should, in fact, be recognized as a “State” for the objectives of article 12 of the indian constitution.
- In ajay hasia v khalid mujib, the petitioners’ main contention was that, even though the institution was formally recognized as a society, it acted more like a government agency. They maintained that government activities led to the college’s founding and that the governments of Jammu and Kashmir and India provided a large amount of its money.
Respondent:
- The argument made by the Respondents in ajay hasia v khalid mujib, on the other hand, is that the Regional Engineering College in Srinagar is not a “State” for the purposes of article 12 of indian constitution. Their main point of argument stemmed from the college’s official legal standing. They argued that the institution should not be regarded as a government agency because it was formally registered as a society, even in the face of significant government involvement.
- The respondents admitted that the government was crucial to the college’s founding, contributed a sizable amount of funds, and appointed individuals to the Board of Governors. They countered that the college operated as a separate and independent business. They argued that the college was not made into a “State” and that the relationship between it and the government was merely formal.
ajay hasia v khalid mujib Judgment
- The Court determined that under article 12 of indian constitution, educational institutions that receive significant funding and direction from the government are considered “States.” It argued that since these organizations carry out public duties, they should be bound by the same constitutional restrictions as other governmental bodies.
- According to Articles 14 and 16, the ruling declared that these institutions’ acts, including their admissions procedures, had to adhere to the principles of equality and non-discrimination. This implies that a fair, open, and non-arbitrary admissions process is required.
- The Court stressed that in order to ensure accountability and the preservation of individual rights, no organization carrying out public functions and receiving significant government assistance can avoid the duties set forth by the Constitution.
With the goal of giving students the best coaching available for law entrance exams including the CLAT, AILET, and various other numerous state judiciary exams, Jyoti Judiciary Coaching, India’s Finest educational Platform, was established. Come enrol now with Jyoti Judiciary!
For any latest news, legal topics, judiciary exams notifications, patterns, etc watch Jyoti Judiciary’s YouTube channel for legal videos for any updates at https://youtube.com/@jyotijudiciarycoaching4852?si=2cwubh9d2A9urwJf
