Holding

ICRISAT is not a State or other authority under Article 12; therefore, a writ under Article 226 is not maintainable against it.

Summary

The petitioners, former employees of the International Crops Research Institute for the Semi‑Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), challenged their termination and sought a writ of mandamus directing ICRISAT to frame service rules approximating Indian labour standards and to compel the Union of India to fulfil a clause of the 1972 agreement granting the institute immunity under the United Nations (Privileges and Immunities) Act, 1947. The Supreme Court examined whether ICRISAT could be treated as a "State" or "authority" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, thereby attracting the jurisdiction of Article 226. It held that ICRISAT was not set up by the Government, receives only minimal Indian funding, and is not financially, functionally or administratively dominated by the State; consequently it is not a State or authority and the writ jurisdiction does not lie. Since no writ could be issued against ICRISAT, the questions of immunity and procedural fairness were deemed moot. The Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the High Court’s dismissal of the writ petitions.

Issues considered

Whether ICRISAT qualifies as a 'State' or 'authority' under Article 12 of the Constitution for the purpose of Article 226 jurisdiction.
Whether the immunity granted to ICRISAT under the United Nations (Privileges and Immunities) Act, 1947 bars judicial review of its actions.
Whether the petitioners' termination violated principles of natural justice and procedural fairness.
Whether the 1972 agreement between the Government of India and ICRISAT is specifically enforceable in domestic courts.

Subjects

Article 226 writ jurisdictionArticle 12 State definitionUnited Nations Privileges and Immunities ActICRISATInternational organization immunityPublic functionNatural justiceDisciplinary proceedingsInternational agreement enforcement

Judgment

A G. BASSI REDDY ETC. ETC.
v.
INTERNATIONAL CROPS RESEARCH INSTT. AND ANR.

FEBRUARY 14. 2003

B [RUMA PAL AND B.N. SR!KRISHNA, JJ.]

Constitution of India, I950-Artic/es 226. 12 and 14-Writ Petition
against International Crops Research Institute-Maintainability of-Held, since
International Crops Research Institute was not set up by the Government and
c it is giving its services voluntarily to large number of countries besides India ·
thus, not a 'State' or 'other authority' within the meaning of Article I 2-
Hence writ petition not maintainable.

International Crops Research· institute (ICRISA T)-respondent
D No.I was set up in pursuance of an agreement between Government of
India and Ford Foundation. It was a non profit research institution to
conduct research and training programmes in the field of agriculture on
voluntary basis. Clause 6 of the agreement granted immunity to ICRISAT
by the Government of India under the United Nations (Privileges and
Immunities) Act, 1947 and also in terms of the agreement, guidelines
E known as personal policy statement were framed to deal with the internal
discipline. Respondent No. I terminated services .of its employees-
appellants. Aggrieved appellants filed writ petitions which were dismissed
holding that writ petitions under Article 226 were not maintainable against
Respondent No. I. Hence the present appeals.
F Appellant contended that the power to grant immunity to
international Organizations' under the United Nations (Privileges and
Imm unities) Act, 1947 did not extend to ICRISAT; that the Union of India
could not have granted immunity from legal process to ICRISAT under
the 1947 Act and that in any event the grant of such immunity could not
G serve to curtail the Court's Constitutional power under Article 226 and
thus violative of Article 14; that the provisions of the March agreement
and the notification would, have to be read in a manner in keeping with
the constitutional provisions; and that the impugned order of termination
was arbitrary and in violation of the principles of natural justice and was
devoid of procedural fairness.
H 1174
G BASSI REDDY r. INTERNATIONAL CROPS RESEARCH INSTT. 1175
ICRISAT and Union of India interalia contended that ICRISAT was A

,. not subject to the Court's jurisdiction under.Article 226 as it was neither
the Government nor any \\'ing of the Government nor was it in any way
accountable or subject to or under the financial or administrative control
of the Government; and that in any event the action which was taken
against the appellants was in accordance with the procedural rules framed
by ICRISAT which were fair and in keeping with the domestic law- B
Industrial Employment (Standing) Orders, 1946.
< -+
Dismissing the appeals, the Court

HELD: I. I. A writ under Article 226 lies only when the petitioner
establishes that his or her fundamental right or some other legal right has c
been infringed. The claim as made by the appellant in his writ petition is
founded on Articles 14 and 16. The claim would not be maintainable
)..
against ICRISAT unless ICRISAT were a 'State' or 'authority' within the
meaning of Article 12. ICRISAT was not set up by the Government and
it gives its services voluntarily to a large number of countries besides India. D
It is not controlled by nor is it accountable to the Government. The Indian
Government's financial contribution to ICRISAT is minimal. Its
participation in ICRISAT's administration is limited to 3 out of 15
; members. Therefore, it cannot be said that ICRISAT is a 'State' or 'other
y authority' as defined in Article 12 of the Constitution.
(1185-F, G; 1186-B, CJ E

Calcutta Gas Co. v. State of W.B., AIR [1962] SC 1944 and Pradeep
Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology and Ors., (2002] 5 SCC
II, referred to.

1.2. A writ under Article 226 also lies against a 'person' for 'any F
· " other purpose'. The power of the High Coil rt to issue such a writ to "any
person" can only mean the power to issue such a writ to any person to
whom, according to well-established principles, a writ lay. That a writ may
issue to an appropriate person for the enforcement of any of the rights
conferred by Part III is clear enough from the language used. But the G
words "for any other purpose" must mean for any other purpose for which
any of the writs mentioned would, according to well established principles
issue. (1186-D, E]

Car/shad MW. Mfg. Co. v. HM Jagtiani, AIR (1952) Cal. 315,
referred to. H
-,
1176 SUPREME COURT REPORTS f2003] I S.C.R.

A 1.3. A writ under Article 226 can lie against a "person" if it is a
statutory body or performs a public function or discharges a public or
statutory duty. ICRISAT has not been set up by a statut'e nor are its -.._
activities statutorily controlled. Although, it is not easy to define what a
public function or public duty is, it can reasonably be said that such
functions are similar to or closely related to those performable by the State
B in its sovereign capacity. The primary activity of ICRISAT is to conduct
research and training programines in the sphere of agriculture purely on
a voluntary basis. A service voluntarily undertaken cannot be said to be
a public duty. Besides ICRISAT has a role which extends beyond the
.-
territorial boundaries of India and its activities are designed to benefit
C people from all over the world. While the Indian public may be the
beneficiary of the activities of the institute, it certainly cannot be said that
the ICRISAT owes a duty to the Indian public to provide research and
training facilities. Thus High Court was right in its conclusion that the
writ petition of the appellant was not maintainable against ICRISAT. As
no writ would lie against ICRISAT, the further questions whether it could
D or should have been granted immunity or whether the immunity granted
debarred remedies under Article 226 do not arise.
(1186-F-H; 1187-A; 1185-D-EJ

Praga Tools Corporation v. CA. !manual, 119691 1 SCC 585; Andi
E Mukta Sadguru Trust v. V.R. Rudain, (198912SCC691, 698; VST Ind. Ltd.
v. VST. Ind Workers' Union and Anr., 1200111 SCC 298 and Praga Tools
Corporation v. CV. !manual, AIR (19601 SC 1306, referred to.

2. The prayer that the Union should take action to fulfil clause 6 of
the March agreement is unsustainable as in substance the relief claimed
F is against ICRISAT. Furthermore, it is doubtful whether the agreement
between the Indian Government and ICRISAT is specifically enforceable
as such in domestic Courts, particularly when the agreement does not form
part of any domestic legislation. In any event, it could not be said that
the Personnel Policy Statement framed by ICRISAT dealing with internal
discipline was not in terms of clause 6(2). It has not been shown how these
G guidelines (which were in fact followed in the appellant's case) deviated
from or did not approximate to the established disciplinary procedures
followed by other private concerns in the country. 11187-D, E; 1188-CJ

Dadu v. State of Maharashtra, 12000) 8 SCC 437, distinguished.

H CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2399 of I 996.
G BASSI REDDY r INTERNATIONAL CR.JPS RESEARCH INSTT [RUMA PAL J.]J 177

From the Judgment and Order dated 30.6.1988 of the High Court of A
Andhra Pradesh in W.P. No. 7380 of 1983.

WITH

C.A. Nos. 5800/99. 2400-2411. 2858, 2393-98/96.
B
R. Venkataramani, Raju Ramachandran, G.B. Pai. R. Nedumarar. Ms.
Manju Aggarwal, B. Balaji, Satya Mitra Garg, G. Biswal, S. Mishra, J.R. Das
K.C. Kaushik, Prateek Jalan and BVB Das for the appearing parties

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
c
RUMA PAL, J. The appellants were employees of the respondent
No. I (ICRISAT). Their services were terminated. They filed writ petitions
before the High Court of A.P. against ICRISAT and the Union of India. The
\Vrit petitions were dismissed. The first writ petition so dismissed was
W.P.No.2730/1981 (K.S. Mathew v. ICRISA7). A second group of writ
petitions was dismissed on 30th June 1988. The dismissals are the subject D
matter of these appeals. Both the Division Benches held that ICRISAT was I
an international organisation and was immue from being sued because of a
Notification issued in I 972 under the United Nations (Privileges and
immunities) Act, I 947 and that a writ under Article 226 could not be issued
to ICRISAT.
E
. What or who is ICRISAT? Was the High Court right in holding that it
was not amenable to the writ jurisdiction under Article 2269

ICRISA T was proposed to be set up as a non-profit research and training
centre by the· Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research F
(CGIAR). The CGIAR is an informal association of about 50 government
and non-governmental bodies and is co-sponsored by the Food and Agriculture
Organisation of the United Nations, (FAO), the United Nations Development
Program (UNDP), the United Environment Program (UNEP) and the World
Bank. The members of the CGIAR at the relevant time were the African
Development Bank, the Asian Development Bank, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, G
the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United States, Ford Foundation,
France, Germany, the inter-American Development Bank, the International
Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the International Development
Research Centre, Japan. Kellogg Foundation, Netherlands, Norway,
Rockefeller Foundation, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom, United H
1178. SUPREME COURT REPORTS [20031 I S.C.R.

A Nations Development Programme and the United States of America. In addition
there were representatives from the five major developing regions of the
world, namely, Africa. Asia and the Far East, Latin America, the Middle
East, Southern and Eastern Europe.

The object of setting up ICRISA T was to help developing countries in
B semi-arid tropics to alleviate rural pove1ty and hunger in ways that are
environmentally sustainable. The developing countries include India, parts of
South-Asian, sub-Saharan and South and Eastern Africa and parts Latin -"'
America. The object was sought to be achieved by research and development
of scientific technologies which could improve the quantity and quality of
C sorghum (bajra), pearl and finger millet, pigeon peas, chick peas and ground
nut.

Certain members of the Consulative Group agreed to provide funds to
support the setting up and continued functioning of ICRISA T. The financing
members ofCGIAR entered into an agreement on 20th March 1972 with the
D international Bank for Re-construction and Development (!BRO) to establish
a special account. The !BRO then entered into an agreement with Ford
Foundation under which Ford Foundation undertook to implement the proposal
for setting up ICRISA T.

A memorandum of agreement was then entered into 'between the
E Government of India and the Ford Foundation (acting on behalf of the
Consultative Group) on 28th March I 972 (referred to as the March agreement)
for the establishment of ICRISA T. The agreement provided that the principal
headquarters of IC RISA T would be at Hyderabad, India. The agreement
recorded that JCRISA T would, inter-alia, serve, as a world centre for
conducting research and training of scientists for the improvement of sorghum,
F
millet pigeon peas and chick peas.

Clause 4 of the March agreement under the head 'Administration and
Governance' provided:

G "The Institute shall be established in India as an autonomous,
international philanthropic, non-profit, research, educational, and
training organisation.

The Institute shall be administered by a Director who shall pe
selected by the Governing Board. The Director shall be responsible
H for the internal operation and management of the Institute and for
G BASSI REDDY,._ INTERNATIONAL CROPS RESEARCH INSTT. [RUMA PAL .I JI 179

assuring that the programme and objectives of the Institute are properly A
developed and carried out. He shall be a member of the Board ex-
officio.

The Board shall be responsible for development and or approval
of the Institute's programmes and for the policies under which the
Institute operates, shall be responsible for selection and employment B
of the Director, and shall approve the appointment of the senior staff
• members on the recommendation of the Director. The Board shall
also review and approve the budget estimates for the Institute.

The Governing Board may consist of no more than fifteen members C
selected as follows:-

3 members designated by the host country. 3 1nembers designed
by the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research. 6
to eight members at large with relevant interests and qualifications
fro1n countries or areas being served or from countries or agencies D
which have been concern for and provide substantial support for
work in the fields of the lnstitute's major responsibilities. I Director
of the Institute, ex-officio .
• The Consultative Group on International Research, through its
sub-committee for ICRISAT shall be responsible for constituting the E
Initial Governing Board. India will be represented on the sub-
Com1nittee. ''

Pursuant to the March agreement a further agreement was entered into
between Ford Foundation representing CGIAR and the Government of India
on 7th July 1972 by which ICRISAT was established. ICRISAT set up its F
headquarters with its office, staff quarters, seed producing centres and research
laboratories in about 3000 hectres of land in Andhra Pradesh provided by the
Indian Government.

The initial financial support for setting up and administering ICRISAT G
was provided substantially by the Governments of the United Kingdom. United
States of America, United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and
IBRD. Other members of the Consultative Group provided non-monetary
service in kind. According to the figures presented by ICRISA T to Court,
India's contribution to the respondent No. I has ranged between 0.3% to
2.0% as against 99.7% to 98% of the total contribution from other countries. H
1180 SUPREME COURT REPORTS P003l I S.C.R.

A ICRISAT has programmes in Tanzania, Sudan, Niger. Mali. Nigeria.
Senegal and Upper Volta under the United Nations Development Programme
(UNDP) and in 1984 set up a second centre in Niger. It has also entered into
agreements with Niger, Malawi, Mali, Nigeria, Kenya and Zimbabwe for
establishing centres and regional programmes in these countries.

B ICRISA T is staffed by persons from 22 nations including India who
work in Asia, Africa and Latin America. Training has been Imparted to 2500
research members and students from 97 countries including 850 from India. .
There are 15 members in the Governing Board of ICRISA T apart from three
nominess of the Government of India. The other members are from different
C countries and as at present are from Norway, Zambia Phillipines, Germany,
France, Sweden, USA, Canada, Australia, Japan, Brazil and Nigeria.

Clause 6 of the March agreement provided for the grant of immunity
to IC RISA T by the Government of India under the United Nations (Privileges
and Immunities) Act, 1947. The clause is reproduced beiow:
D
"(a) The Government of India shall recognise the Institute as a
philanthropic, non-profit organisation with the purposes set fo1th in
this Memorandum. The international status of the Institute will be
ensured by the Government of ln9ia issuing suitable Notification as
contemplated in Clause 3 of the United Nations (Privileges and
E Immunities) Act, 1947 extending the operation of Articles I and II,
Sections 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the Schedule of the said Act to the
Institute. Further, the interests of non-Indian officials of the Institute
staff will be safeguarded to the extent; envisaged in A1ticle V, Section
17, 18 (b), (<l), (e) and (g), 19, 20 and 21 of the said Schedule and
Government of India instructions thereunder being no less favourable
F than that extended to non-Indian officials of the IBRD."

Section 3 of the United Nations (Privileges and Immunities) Act, 1947.
(hereafter referred to as 1947 Act') empowers the Central Government by
notification in the Official Gazette to declare that the provisions of the Schedule
G to the 1947 Act shall apply, subject to such modification, if any, as the
Central Government may consider necessary or expedient for giving effect to
any international agreement, convention or other instruments to confer on
any international organisation and its representatives and officers privileges
and immunities as provided for in the Schedule to the 194 7 Act and
"notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained· in any other law," the
H provisions of the 1947 Act so declared to be applicable are "to have the force
G'.} BASSI REDDY r INTF.RNATIONAL CROPS RESEARCH INSTT. [RUMA PAL, J.]118 l

of law in India.'' A
Pursuant to clause 6 of the agree1nent and in exercise ofpo\vers conferred
by Section 3 of the 194 7 Act. a no11fication was issued by the Government,
Ministry of External Affairs on 28th October 1972 \Vhich \Vas duly gazetted
on the sa1ne day. By the notification the Central Government declared:
B
"that the provisions of Article I. Article 11 and Article V (Section
> 17, 18(b), (d), (e) and (g), 19, 20 and 21) of the Schedule to the said
Act shall, subject to the modifications specified below, apply mutatis
mutandis, to the International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-
Arid Tropics and to its officers recruited on an International basis,
except that the exemptions under Sections 18 and 19 shall apply only C
to the hOn-lndian officials of the said Institute .
.. Modifications-

(I) for the words "United Nations" wherever they occur, the words
"International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics" D
shall be substituted;
(ii) for the words "Secretary General" wherever they occur, the word
"Director" shall be substituted.

2. In Section 17 and Section 20, words "General Assembly and
Security Council", the \Vords "Governing Board"' shall be substituted. E

3. In Section 19,

(i) for the words "Secretary-general" and all Assistant Secretaries-
general" the word "Director" shall be substituted.

(iii) for the words "their spouses", the words "his spouse" shall be
F
substituted."

The Articles of the Schedule to the 1947 Act which were made applicable
under the notification were Articles I, II and certain provisions of Article 5.
Article I of the Schedule deals with the juridical personality of the international G
organisation, Article II with its 'Property, Funds and Assets" and Article 5
with the 'Officials' of the International Organisation and the grants of
privileges and immunities to them. What was not included was Article Vlll,
particularly section 29 thereof, which would have made the Organisation
liable to make provisions for "appropriate modes of settlement of disputes
arising out of contracts or other disputes of a private law character to which H
1182 SUPREME COURT REPORTS f2003] J S.C.R.

A the international organisation is a party."

However, clause 6(2) of the March agreement recorded the Government
of India's assurance of authority to the Governing Board of ICRISAT to
establish employment policies and conditions 'or the senior staff of the Institute
on an international basis. In addition, the Governing Board was given authority
B under the agreement to establish terms and conditions of employment for
junior scientists, technicians, clerical, administrative and operational support
personnel. The conditions of employment were expected ''to more nearly
approximate accepted norms of the host country, with such modifications as
may be necessary to assure availability of well qualified staff and a high
C quality of performance."

Guidelines known as Personnel Policy Statements relating to the services
of personnel which were to remain effective and be applied pending
formulation of Rules were framed by lCRlSAT on 3rd July 1976 which
included the procedure in respect of disciplinary action. The procedure
D envisaged the framing and issuing of a charge-sheet by the Personnel Manager,
reply thereto by the employee within the stipulated period, examination of
the reply by the Personnel Manager with the Oepa1tment Head, the dropping
of the case in the event the explanation was found sufficient and institutional
inquiry in the event the explanation was not accepted and the measure of
E punishment. The nature of the indiscipline and misconduct warranting major
penalty for example dismissal etc. was defined. The disciplinary authority
named for specified categories of employees had also the authqrity to constitute
the enquiry committee and to ~uspend employees. The ICRISAT (Discipline
and Appeal Rules) came to be fornrnlated subsequently in 1991.

p As all the appeals raise the same issue, we limit the factual consideration
to Civil Appeal No. 2399of1996. The appellant in this appeal was appointed
by ICRISAT on 15th January 1975 as a Field Helper. The offer of appointment
issued to the appellant stated that apart from the terms and couditions
specifically mentioned in the appointment letter, the other te1ms of employment
would be governed by the' ICRISAT Personnel Policy Statement as amended
G upto date and all such further amendments made from time to time and
intimated to the appellant. It was made clear that the Personnel Policy
Statement would form part of the terms and conditions of service as though
embodied specifically in the offer of contract of employment. A copy of the
Personnel Policy Statement was enclosed with the letter. The appellant signed
·H the offer of employment on 20th January 1975 expressly accepting the terms
G BASSI REDDY, .. INTERNATIONAL CROPS RESEARCH INSTT [RUMA PAL. Jll 183

and conditions. In a separate letter dated 23rd April 1975 the appellant A
acknowledged the receipt of the amendments to the Personnel Policy for
professional and suppo1t staff (locally recruited). The letter recorded that the
appellant had studied and understood the contents thereof and undertook to
abide by ICR ISA T's policies. The Jetter concluded with the following
paragraph:
B
"In particular I am aware of the legal position of the ICRISAT and
I undertake to respect the sa1ne and seek ventilation of 1ny grievances,
if any, strictly and only through the Grievance Procedure laid down
in these policies. I further appreciate that since the ICRISAT is an
international organisation immune from the laws of India. I am not C
entitled to seek recourse under such laws, including industrial laws,
for rectification of grievances."
~-
On 23rd June 1983, in view of growing indiscipline in the Institute the
Director-General issued a circular which inter-alia stated:

'A new set of disciplinary and appeal procedures for staff has been D
drafted and the Staff-Management Joint Council will be consulted in
this regard. Until these procedures are promulgated, procedures laid
down in 1976 continue to apply. These provide for minor and major
penalties according to the Schedule in Annexure I. Where the nature
of the misconduct warrants a major penalty, an enquiry must be held E
before the _penalty can be proposed and awarded."

A show cause notice was issued to the appellant calling for an
explanation for the acts of misconduct specified therein. The appellant gave
an explanation on 25th July 1983. The explanation was not found satisfactory
and an Enquiry Officer was appo;nted to enquire into the charges framed F
against the appellant. In August 1983, the appellant filed the writ application
which was resulted in the impugned order. The prayer in the writ petition was
:) for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing ICRISA T to frame rules regarding
the conditions of service which "nearly approxin1ate to the accepted custom
of India" and to direct the Union of India to take action for fulfilment of
clause 6(a)(2) of the March agreement between the Union of India and CGIAR. G
It is not clear whether any copy of the writ petition was served on the
respondents at that stage. In any event, ICR ISA T proceeded witil the
disciplinary enquiry against the appellant. An inquiry notice was issued on
13th September 1983. The appellant did not participate in the inquiry. H
1184 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] I S.C.R.

A Ultimately, the Enquiry Officer submitted a report to the Personnel Manager
on 17th October 1983 finding the charges against the appellant proved. The
order of termination was passed on 5th August 1983 by the Prindpal
Administrator. In the order dismissing the appellant, it was stated that the
appellant would stand relieved with effect from 5th December 1983 and that
the appellant would be entitled to three months salary in lieu of notice
B consequent upon the cessation of his employment with ICRISAT. It does not
appear that the appellant's writ petition was amended to challenge the order
of dismissal.

It was submitted on behalf of the appellant before us that the I 94 7 Act
C had been enacted by Parliament to give effect to the Convention on the
Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations, 1946 According to the
appellants the power to grant immunity to International Organizations' under
the 1947 Act therefore did not extend to organizations like JCRISAT which
was neither an organ of the United Nations nor a specialised agency within
the meaning of Article 57 of the U.N. Charter. The appellant also contended
D that in any event the immunity granted to ICRISA T could not extend beyond
or to matters unrelated to the functions of the organization. It is argued that
the prohibition on the employees to take recourse to the municipal Courts
in connection with settlement of disputes relating to employment would not
come within the grant of that immunity nor could immunity be granted against
E the power of judicial review. Reliance has been placed on Dadu v. State of
Maharshtra, [2000] 8 SCC 437 in this connection. It is also argued by the
appellants that the Government could not enter into a treaty or any international
agreement nor issue a notification pursuant thereto which may have the effect
of infringing fundamental or constitutional rights of the citizens in derogation
of Constitutional provisions. It was submitted that the provisions of the March
F agreement and the noti,fication would therefore have to be read in a manner
in keeping with the constitutional provisions. It was submitted that the non
inclusion of Sections 29 and 30 of Article VIII of the Schedule to the i 947
Act in the notification is violative of the fundamental rights of the ICRISAT
employees under Articles 14, 2 I and 311. It was submitted that the absence
of an independent and impartial Tribunal to· decide labour disputes between
G ICRISA T and its employees was also in violation of Article 8 of the Universal
De_claration of Human Rights. It was submitted that the conferment of the
immunity without imposition of a corresponding obligation on ICRISA T to
I
provide for an impartial tribunal to decide disputes between ICRISA T and its
employees is violative of Article 14. It was finally submitted that the impugned
H order of termination was arbitrary and in violation.ofthe principle~ of natural
G. BASSI REDDY,.. INTERNATIONAL CROPS RESEARCH INSTT [RUMA PAL Jil] 85

justice and was devoid of procedural fairness. A
Learned counsel for the Union of India submitted that the notification
had been issued in terms of the March agreement entered into between the
Government and CGIAR. According to the Union of India. it could not
unilaterally change the terms of the agreement with CGIAR pursuant to which
the notification had been issued. It was also submitted that ICRISA Twas not B
subject to the Court's jurisdiction under A1ticle 226 as it was neither the
Govern1nent nor any wing of the Government nor \Vas it in any. \Vay
accountable or subject to or under the financial or administrative control of
the Government. ICRISAT supported the Union of India and also submitted
that no writ application was maintainable against it. It was further .submitted C
that in any event the action which was taken against the appellants was in
accordance with the procedural rules framed by !CRISA T which were fair
and in keeping with the domestic law, namely, the Industrial Employment
(Standing) Orders, 1946.

The appellant's arguments that the Union of India could not have granted D
immunity from legal process to ICR!SAT under the 1947 Act and that in any
event the grant of such immunity could not serve to curtail the Courts
Constitutional power under Article 226, proceeds on the basis that were it not
for such immunity, a writ could issue to !CR!SA T. If a writ did otherwise lie
against a body, it is a moot point \Vhether jud1cial review of its actions could
be excluded by grant of inrnrnnity either by Statute or by a Statutory E
Notification. Since, in our view, no writ would lie against ICRISA T, therefore
the further questions whether it could or should have been granted immunity
or whether the immunity debarred remedies under Article - 226 do not arise.

A writ under Article 226 lies only when the petitioner establishes that F
... his or her funda1nental right or some other legal right has been infringed
Calcutta Gas Co. v. State of W.B.; AIR (1962) SC (1044), 1047-1048. The
claim as made by the appellant in his writ petition is founded on Articles 14
and 16. The claim would not be maintainable against ICRISA T unless
ICRISAT were a 'State' or 'authority' within the meaning of Article 12. The
tests for determining \Vhether an organization is either, has been recently G
considered by a Constitution Bench of this Court in Pradeep Kumar Biswas
v. Indian Institute a/Chemical Biology and Ors., [2002] 5 SCC 111 at p. 134
in which v. e said:
1

"The question in each case would be - whether in the light of the
cumulative facts as established, the body is financially functionally H
1186 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [20031 I S.C.R.

A and administratively dominated by or under the control of the
Government. Such control must be particular to the body in question
and must be pervasive. If this is found then the body is a State within
Article 12. On the other hand. when the control is merely regulatory
whether under statute or otherwise it would not serve to make the
body a State."'
B
The facts which have been narrated earlier clearly show that ICRISA T
does not fulfil any of these tests. It was not set up by the Government and
it gives its services voluntarily to a large number of countries besides India.
It is not controlled by nor is it accountable to the Government. The Indian
C Government's financial contribution to ICRISAT is minimal. Its participation
in ICRSAT's administration is limited to 3 out of 15 members. It cannot
therefore be said that ICRISA T is a State or other authority as defined in
Article 12 of the Constitution. ~

It is true that a writ under Article 226 also lies against a 'person' for
D "any other purpose". The power of the High Court to issue such a writ to
"any person" can only mean the power to issue such a writ to any person
to whom, according to well-established principles, a writ lay. That a writ may
issue to an appropriate person for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred
by Part III is clear enough from the language used. But the words "and for
any other purpose" must mean "for any other purpose for which any of the
E writs mentioned would, according to well established principles issue.'

A writ under Article 226 can lie against a "person" if it is a statutory
body or performs a public function or discharges a public or statutory duty
Praga Tools Corporation v. C.A. /manual, [ 1969] I SCC 585; Andi Mukta
F Sadguru Trust v. V.R. Rudani, [1969] 2 SCC 691, 698; VST Ind. ltd v. VST
Ind Workers' Union and Anr., (2001] I SCC 298. ICRISAT has not been set ,._
up by a statute nor are its activities statutorily controlled. Although, it is not
easy to define what a public function or public duty is, it can reasonably be
said that such functions are similar to or closely related to those performable
by the State in its sovereign capacity. The primary activity of ICRISAT is to
G conduct research and training programmes in the sphere of agriculture purely
on a voluntary basis. A service voluntarily undertaken cannot be said to be
a public duty. Besides ICRISAT has a role which extends beyond the territorial
boundaries of India and its activities are designed to benefit people from all
over the world. While the Indian public may be the beneficiary of the activities
H I. Carishad M.W. Mfg. Co. v. lf..11. Jagliani. AIR (1952) Cal 315 at 318.
G. BASSI REDDY, .. INTERNATIONAL CROPS RESEARCH INSTT. [RUMA PAL J.J] J 87

of the Institute, it certainly cannot be said that the ICRISA T owes a duty to A
the Indian public to provide research and training facilities. In ?raga Tools
Corporation v. CV. /manual, AIR ( 1960) SC 1306. this Court construed
Article 226 to hold that the High Court could issue a writ of mandamus "to
secure the performance of the duty or statutory duty" in the performance of
which the one who applies for it has a sufficient legal interest. The Court also
held that. B
" .............. an application for mandamus will not lie for an order of
reinstatement to an office which is essentially of a private character
nor can such an application be maintained to secure perfomiance of
obligations owed by a company towards its workmen or to resolve C
any private dispute See Sohan Lal v. Union of India, [1957] SCR
738.

We are therefore of the view that the High Court was right in its
conclusion that the writ petition of the appellant was not maintainable against
lCRISAT. D
The second relief sought in the writ petition is against the Union of
India. The prayer is that the Union should take action to fulfil clause 6 of the
March agreement, The prayer is unsustainable as in substance the relief claimed
)
is against ICRISA T. Furthermore it is doubtful whether the agreement between E
the Indian Government and ICRISA T is specifically enforceable as such in
domestic Court, pai1icularly when the agreement does not fonn part of any
domestic legislation. The case of Dadu v. State of Maharashtra, relied upon
by the appellant has no bearing on the issue which arise for consideration in
the case before us. In that case, the Constitutional validity of Section 32A of
the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 which prohibited F
appellate Courts from suspending sentence despite the appeal being admitted,
was questioned. The impugned section clearly ran contrary to the provisions
of the Criminal Procedure Code which allowed the appellate courts
discretionary powers to suspend sentences. One of the arguments raised by
the Respondent-State to justify this apparent contradiction was that the section
had been enacted in discharge of the Government of India's international G
obligations under the United Nations Convention Against Illicit Trafficking
in Narcotics and Psychotropic, 1988. The Court held that the Convention
clearly and unambiguously showed that the Convention was made subject to
"constitutional principles and the basic concept of its legal system prevalent
in the polity of the member country." The States argument was rejected as H
1188 SUPREME COURT REPORTS f2003] I S.C.R.

A it was found as a fact that there was no international agreement which obliged
countries notwithstanding the constitutional principles and basic concept of
its legal system, to put a blanket ban on the power of the Cour1 to suspend
the sentence awarded to a criminal under the Act. There was no conflict
between the Government's international obligation and the domestic law. In
B · the present case there is no question of any conflict. What is sought for. on
the other hand is an enforcement of a clause in an international agreement.

In any event, it could not be said that the Personnel Policy Statement .(
framed by ICRISA T dealing with internal discipline was not in terms of
clause 6(2) of the March agreement. It has not been shown how these
C guidelines (which were in fact followed in the appellant's case) deviated
from or did not approximate to the established disciplinary procedures followed
by other private concerns in the country.

In these circumstances, we dismiss the appeals without ariy order as to +
costs.
D
N.J. Appeals dismissed.

f·