Ajay Hasia v Khalid Mujib | Important Acts and Laws for Judiciary Exams PDF Download

Introduction

• The case of Ajay Hasia v Khalid Mujib, (1981) 1 SCC 722, was a significant ruling by the Supreme Court of India. In this case, the Court established a test to figure out if an individual, corporation, or society could be considered an instrumentality or agency of the government. This determination is important because it decides whether they can be treated as a "State" under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. When an entity is regarded as a "State" under Article 12, it can be subject to a writ petition if it violates the Constitution.
• The Court's decision, which Justice P. N. Bhagwati presented, essentially summarized Bhagwati's perspective in the case of R. D. Shetty v International Airport Authority of India. Ajay Hasia condensed the International Airport Authority case into a six-factor test for identifying whether an entity qualifies as an instrumentality or agency of the State.

Facts of Ajay Hasia v Khalid Mujib

• Ajay Hasia v Khalid Mujib involves the Regional Engineering College in Srinagar, which is one of 15 colleges in the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir. These colleges are registered and managed as "societies" under government oversight. They are registered under the J&K Registration of Societies Act of 1898. The government has direct or indirect control over the management and administrative functions of these colleges. The funding for these colleges comes from both the central government and the J&K state government. Faculty and staff recruitment for the college are typically carried out by government representatives and many faculty members are government appointees themselves.
• The current situation arises from a writ petition filed by the petitioners, who seek to invoke Article 32 against the college authorities on the grounds that the college falls under the definition of "the state." The petitioners applied for admission to the B.E. Course at the college in response to a notice issued by the college authorities regarding available admission vacancies. However, they argue that the admission process and the subsequent results lack validity. The procedure included a qualifying examination worth 100 marks and a viva voce examination (an oral examination) worth 50 marks. The petitioners claim that this process was unfairly implemented to their disadvantage.
• The petitioners allege that the college authorities determined the results of both the qualifying examination and the viva voce examination unjustly. They contend that they scored higher marks in the qualifying examination compared to the applicants who were admitted solely on the basis of the viva voce examination, which accounts for almost 50% of the total evaluation. The viva voce examination, which lasted only 2 or 3 minutes, consisted of questions unrelated to the course and, in the petitioners' view, cannot be considered a reliable test for determining admissions. This has raised questions about the maintainability of the petitioners' claims and the reliability of the admission procedure.

Legal Provisions Referred

Background of the Case

• The case centers around the admission procedures of the Regional Engineering College in Srinagar, Jammu & Kashmir.
• This college is registered as a society under the Jammu & Kashmir Registration of Societies Act, 1898.
• The main concern is whether this college falls under the definition of "State" according to Article 12 of the Indian Constitution and is thereby subject to writ jurisdiction.

The Viva Voce Interviews

• The admission process included viva voce interviews, where each candidate faced short interviews lasting only two to three minutes.
• Questions during these interviews were formal and mainly focused on the candidate's background and residence, rather than the relevant subjects.
• The key issue is whether the viva voce process was conducted arbitrarily.

Allocation of Marks

• One-third of the total marks were assigned to the viva voce examination.
• Questions have been raised regarding the fairness, reasonableness, and potential arbitrariness of this mark allocation.

Equality Clause Concerns

• There is a question regarding whether having different admission procedures for candidates from Jammu & Kashmir and candidates from other states violates the Equality Clause under Article 14 of the Indian Constitution.

Issues Raised

• Whether the college falls within the definition of the state as per Article 12, determining the maintainability of the writ?
• Whether the admission process of the college breaches Article 14, as claimed by the petitioners?

Arguments Made by the Petitioner

• The petitioners in the case of Ajay Hasia v Khalid Mujib contested the classification of the Regional Engineering College, Srinagar, arguing that it should be considered a 'State' according to Article 12 of the Indian Constitution.
• The primary contention put forth by the petitioners was that despite being formally registered as a society, the college operated more like a governmental institution. They highlighted that its establishment was primarily due to government initiatives, and a substantial portion of its funding originated from the Governments of India and Jammu and Kashmir.
• Additionally, they emphasized the composition of the Board of Governors as indicative of government influence over the college. With a majority of government appointees on the Board, including representatives from various government bodies and officials appointed by the two governments, the petitioners argued that this demonstrated direct government control over the college.
• The petitioners asserted that the true nature and character of the college were governmental, leading them to advocate for its classification as a 'State' under Article 12. They urged the court to look beyond the formal registration of the college as a society under the Jammu and Kashmir Registration of Societies Act, 1898, and consider its actual operations and control, which they believed clearly fell within the realm of governmental authority.

Judgement in Ajay Hasia v Khalid Mujib

Issue 1

• The court ruling in Ajay Hasia v Khalid Mujib favored the petitioners, asserting the legal maintainability of the writ petition due to the Regional Engineering College falling within the scope of Article 12 as "other authorities."
• Analysis of the memorandum of understanding and rules of conduct governing the college authority revealed significant government influence in the composition of the Society and financial backing from the Central Government and the Government of Jammu and Kashmir.
• The court concluded that the college, as a registered society, could be deemed a "State" under Article 12, regardless of its establishment method, emphasizing its role as a government instrumentality.
• A test was established to identify whether an entity qualifies as an instrumentality or agency of the state under Article 12, considering factors like government ownership, financial aid, monopoly status, state control, and public importance of functions.

Issue 2

• In the second issue of Ajay Hasia v Khalid Mujib, the court slightly leaned towards the respondents but maintained a fair stance, outlining guidelines to assess violations of Article 14 of the Indian Constitution in selection procedures.
• The court acknowledged the college's discretion in setting selection procedures but deemed the allocation of marks for viva voce examination excessive, suggesting a review for future tests.
• It differentiated between the doctrine of classification and Article 14, clarifying that hierarchy or value rankings do not necessarily indicate unfair treatment.
• While dismissing claims against the suitability of oral interviews, the court stressed the importance of fair conduct in assessments, addressing concerns about interview duration and relevance.
• Future recommendations included a revision of the selection process, with adjustments to the weightage of the viva voce examination to prevent potential discrepancies.

Conclusion

In the Ajay Hasia v Khalid Mujib case, Justice P. N. Bhagwati delivered a landmark judgment that introduced the influential six-factor test. This test has gained prominence and is often cited more frequently than the previous International Airport Authority case, also authored by Justice Bhagwati.
The six factors outlined in the Ajay Hasia v Khalid Mujib case are as follows:

• Whether the share-capital of the corporation is held by the Government.
• Whether the financial assistance from the State covers nearly all the corporation’s expenses.
• Whether the corporation enjoys a monopoly status granted or protected by the state.
• Whether there is significant and extensive state control over the corporation.
• Whether the functions of the corporation are of public importance and closely linked to governmental functions.
• Whether a department of the government has been transferred to the corporation.

These factors serve as a guideline for determining whether an entity can be considered an instrumentality or agency of the state and, consequently, subject to the provisions of Article 12 of the Indian Constitution.