Case Brief: Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib

INTRODUCTION

The case of Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi & Ors. (1981) 1 SCC 722 is an important case in Indian Constitutional Law that deals specifically with the interpretation of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. In this case, the Supreme Court of India established a ‘six-factor test’ for determining if an entity can be deemed as an agency of the State. This test is essential as any entity deemed as the State can be challenged through a writ petition if it violates any constitutional provision. The earlier case of R. D. Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India was referred by the court so as to create a comprehensive six-factor test that could determine if an entity performing public functions or possessing public powers could be deemed a ‘State’ under Article 12. The Ajay Hasia decision highlighted the value of function above form and prohibited anyone from using institutional status or structure modifications as a way to skirt constitutional requirements.

This case has had a lasting impact on the constitutional law of India, influencing subsequent jurisprudence and expanding the scope of accountability for entities entrusted with public functions. Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi & Ors. (1981) 1 SCC 722 leaves a lasting impact because of its important contribution to the development of constitutional jurisprudence in India.  

FACTS

The matter revolves around the Regional Engineering College located in Srinagar, which is among the 15 colleges situated in the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir. These colleges are registered and administered as “societies” under the observation of the government, and they fall under the purview of the J&K Registration of Societies Act of 1898. The government exercises both direct and indirect control over the management and administrative functions of these colleges, and they receive funding from the central as well as the J&K state government. Government officials typically conduct the recruitment of faculty and staff, and the government appoints many faculty members. 

The petitioners claimed that the institution qualifies as “the state” under Article 12 and launched a writ petition against the college administration, using Article 32 of the Constitution. The petitioners had responded to a notice posted by the college administration on open admission slots by applying for admission to the B.E. course. But they disputed the legitimacy of the admissions procedure, alleging that the outcomes were arbitrarily selected. A qualifying test worth 100 marks plus an oral exam called the viva voice examination worth 50 marks made up the admissions process. The petitioners claimed that the outcomes of both exams were unfairly established by the college administration. They argued that their qualifying examination scores were higher than those of candidates who were admitted only on the basis of the viva voice examination, which made up over half of the evaluation. The petitioners argued that the two- or three-minute viva voce examination was not a valid means of selecting admissions since it included questions irrelevant to the subject. 

The Regional Engineering College in Srinagar’s standing and nature have been put into doubt by this case. Though officially recognised as a society and seemingly self-governing, questions were raised over whether the government’s strong engagement and control over its activities qualified it as a “State” for the purposes of Article 12 of the Indian Constitution. The primary question was whether the institution, which was heavily dependent on government financing and oversight, should be held to the constitutionally mandated obligations. The perceived arbitrariness and unfairness of the admissions process, particularly the viva voice exam, was another point of concern.

ISSUES

1. Whether the Regional Engineering College is a state as defined in Article 12.
2. Whether the admission procedure of the college is violative of article 14?

Arguments by the petitioners

• The petitioners argued that the Regional Engineering College was both administratively as well as financially managed by the Central as well as the J&K state government since its establishment. It was noted that the college’s registration under the J&K Registration of Societies Act of 1898 was a legally recognised indication of its affiliation with the state. The petitioners claimed that this confirmed the college’s status as being under Article 12’s definition of the “State.”
• Since the petitioners argued that the Regional Engineering College has the status of the ‘State’, they contended that the college may be held legally liable for allegedly violating the petitioners’ fundamental rights throughout the admissions process.
• The petitioners claimed that the college’s actions in determining the admission results had infringed their fundamental rights and hence it required the Supreme Court’s intervention. Basically, the petitioners challenged the admission procedure, especially the allocation of 50 marks to the viva-voice examination which as claimed, went on for only 2-3 minutes and consisted of questions that were unrelated to the course. Hence allocating 50 marks to such an irrelevant examination seemed irrelevant to the petitioner’s.

Arguments by the Respondents

• The respondents contended that the Regional Engineering College, Srinagar, though had significant government influence or support however, since it was officially registered as a  society under the Jammu & Kashmir Societies Registration Act, 1898, the respondents argued that it indicated the college’s autonomy and hence it shouldn’t be considered a government entity.
• They emphasised that the college was not directly governed by government laws and that it instead had its own set of policies. The respondents emphasised the freedom with which the institution operated on a daily basis and maintained that it was not directly governed by the government.
• Since the College did not qualify as ‘State’ , therefore the respondents contended that the writ petition was not maintainable.
• The Respondents denied violating basic rights in the admissions process. They claimed there was no established procedure for determining the percentage of marks allotted to each round. They also refuted the petitioners’ allegation of manipulation and stated that every applicant received equal opportunities, hence Article 14 was not violated.

DECISION

Regarding the first issue, the court found that the writ petition was legally maintainable. The Regional Engineering College in Srinagar was classified as “other authorities” under Article 12. A review of the memorandum of understanding and the regulations controlling the registered college authority were among the terms examined by the court in its analysis. The court emphasised that the Central Government and the Government of Jammu and Kashmir supplied all financial support for the Society, and that the Society’s regulations required clearance at both government levels. 

Additionally, the court noted that government representatives had a significant impact in the Society’s composition. After reviewing the petitioners’ claims and examining the institution’s government-run activities, the court determined that the college qualified as a “State” under Article 12 since it is a registered society. Accordingly, the writ petition may be maintained. The court here, established the six-factor test so as to determine that an entity qualifies as an agency of the state under Article 12, government ownership, financial aid, monopoly status, state control, and the public importance of functions.

Regarding the second issue, the court upheld the legitimate and impartial position by deciding in favour of the respondents. In order to ascertain if the selection process went against Article 14 of the Indian Constitution, the court established precise parameters.

The court provided justification for its ruling by pointing out that state authorities are free to create their own selection processes without being bound by stringent guidelines. Although the court determined that the institution administered both tests correctly, it thought it was disproportionate to give the viva voice exam 50 out of 150 marks. The court recognised that the petitioners shouldn’t profit purely from allegations of unfairness, and that it would be unjust to reverse the present admissions process for accepted students. The court made a distinction between Article 14 and the notion of categorization while examining the alleged infringement of that article. It stressed that uneven treatment is not always implied by simple hierarchy or value classification. When performed honestly, oral interviews are an essential component of the Indian selection process, as the court rejected the petitioners’ contention to the contrary.

The petitioners claimed that the viva voice was insignificant or brief, but the court could find no hard proof to substantiate their allegation. The court ordered the institution to reassess its admissions process and recommended a lower percentage of marks for the viva voce exam, but it did not nullify the present admissions process. The court’s verdict confirms that the writ petition is valid. It acknowledges that the college is considered a “State” as per Article 12. The judgment also outlines the criteria for identifying a state instrumentality. Additionally, the court has laid out guidelines to ensure a fair selection process, thereby preventing any future discrepancies.

ANALYSIS

The aforementioned case holds significant importance in the process of defining the value and effectiveness of conducting interview rounds or utilizing any other authoritative selection system in India. Additionally, it plays a crucial role in establishing the scope of Article 12 through the test of instrumentality or agency of a state within the ambit of “other authorities.” This ruling is particularly relevant in determining the extent of the state’s involvement in such selection processes and the degree to which it can be held accountable for any discrepancies that may arise.

In addition to having a big impact on the particular question of admission to Aligarh Muslim University, the Ajay Hasia case established crucial legal guidelines that have affected other instances involving natural justice and the right to a fair trial. The ruling upheld the basic necessity of giving someone the chance to be heard before suffering any negative consequences. An important case in Indian constitutional law, Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravadi & Ors. (1981) 1 SCC 722, deals with the interpretation of Article 12 of the Indian Constitution. The Supreme Court created a “six-factor test” in this case to decide whether or not an organisation qualifies as an agency of the State.

According to the court’s ruling, the Regional Engineering College qualified as “other authorities” under Article 12 and determined that the writ petition was lawfully maintainable. It created the six-factor test to ascertain if a company meets the requirements to be classified as a state agency. Regarding the second matter, the court also maintained a justifiable and unbiased stance, finding in the respondents’ favour. In order to avoid future disputes, the ruling recognised the institution as a “State” under Article 12 and validated the petition for writ. It also provided instructions for an equitable selection procedure.