Supreme Court: Indian Association for the Cultivation of Science (IACS) is a ‘State’ U/Article 12

The Supreme Court in the case Pushan Majumdar vs Union of India observed and has held that the Indian Association for the Cultivation of Science being a “State” as stated within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India.
The bench comprising of Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice Hrishikesh Roy in the case observed and has set aside the judgement passed by the Calcutta High Court wherein it has been held otherwise while dismissing a writ plea filed against the IACS.
In the present case, a writ petition has been filed, who being the academic staff of the IACS who had raised various issues with respect to their service conditions. Thus, the Single Bench of the High Court in the case noticed the decision of the Division Bench in the case Indian Association for the Cultivation of Science, Jadavpur & Ors. v. Ashoke Kumar Roy, the court dismissed the writ petition which is not being maintainable.
Further, the Division bench of High Court dismissed the appeals of intra court which is being filed against the said order.
The appellant before the Apex Court pointed out:
(1). The majority of members of the IACS are being appointed with the prior approval of the Government; as the financial assistance by the Government to IACS which goes beyond 90%
(2) The IACS is substantially being funded by the Central Government which is through the Department of Science and Technology
(3) The Government has pervasive and a deep control over the IACS.
(4) The IACS being a Deemed Research University whose primary function to foster the high quality research in frontier disciplines of the basic science.
The court relying on the case Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology, wherein it has been contended that IACS is “the State” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India as it is financially, administratively, and functionally being dominated by, and the same is under the control of, the Government.
The bench while allowing the appeal observed that this needs to be elaborated on the shortcomings in the views of the Division Bench of the High Court, whether in the earlier decision in the case Ashoke Kumar Roy (supra) or in the order impugned because, in our view, there being hardly any scope for reaching to any other conclusion but the one is in the favour of upholding the submission that
IACS answers to the description of “the State” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, for it being financially, administratively and functionally who being under the control of the Government of India.