Institute For Plasma Research Is 'State' Under Article 12 Of Constitution: Gujarat High Court

The Gujarat High Court has held that Institute for Plasma Research is 'State' under Article 12 of Constitution of India as it is an entity created under a statute having roots in the Atomic Energy Act, is 100% funded by the Government and serves the public by engaging in research and development for societal benefit.

A full bench of Justice AS Supehia, Justice Aniruddha P Mayee and Justice Pranav Trivedi was hearing a reference made by a division bench on the question of law whether Institute for Plasma Research (IPR) can be termed as 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India.

Earlier the high court's division bench had in another matter (HIMANSHU DINESHCHANDRA PAREKH v/s INSTITUTE FOR PLASMA RESEARCH & ORS) upheld a single judge's order dismissing a man's writ petition against termination of services as an engineer by the Institute, on the ground that the institute is an independent and autonomous body and merely because it is under the authority of Department of Atomic Energy it cannot be termed as 'State'.

Referring to Supreme Court's decision in Ajay Hasia v/s Khalid Mujib Sehravardi (1981) the full bench observed that to be considered an authority, the entity must satisfy several criteria:

• It should have been created by a statute or under a statute.
• It must function with liabilities and obligations to the public.
• The creating statute should have vested the entity with the power to make law or issue binding directions (amounting to law under Art. 13(2)), governing its relationship with the public or their legal affairs.
• It must have been entrusted with functions that are governmental or closely associated therewith (i.e., of public importance or fundamental to the life of the people).

"Such an authority is deemed the State because "one who enjoys the powers or privileges of the State must also be subjected to the limitations and obligations of the State." This strong statutory character and clear indicia of power (constitutional or statutory) and its potential to infringe the fundamental rights is what qualifies an entity as an 'authority,' although they may overlap with instrumentalities or agencies in certain factual scenarios," the bench said.

In contradistinction to the facets of the CSIR referred to by Supreme Court in Pradeep Kumar Biswas vs. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology and Ors and applying the principles to IPR, the court said:

"it is manifest that, historically, the respondent-IPR is an entity created under a statute having its roots in the Atomic Energy Act, 1962. It is 100% funded by the Government. The inventions and patents by the respondent-IPR are subject to the restrictions of Section 20 of the Act and have liabilities and obligations to the public. The DAE has full control over the respondent-IPR and can issue directives as it deems necessary for the respondent-IPR to follow. Since the respondent IPR is established by the DAE, which is formed for the development, control, and use of atomic energy for the people of India, the IPR, in furtherance thereof, serves the public by advancing fusion energy, developing plasma technologies for industry, offering Ph.D. programs, and engaging in Research and Development for societal benefit. It also satisfies the test of being vested with the power to issue binding directions amounting to law under Article 13(2), governing rights, duties, and liabilities of individuals".

The bench said that IPR also enjoys powers and privileges of the State and is subject to its obligations; further IPR also follows the reservation policy of the Government, and pays revisions promulgated by the Government are applicable to its employees.

"The Division Bench, while referring to the aforesaid decision in Pradeep Kumar Biswas (supra), has not delved into the foregoing discussion and conclusions. Thus, from the established facets of the respondent-IPR and distinguishing features from the CSIR, we find that IPR falls within the meaning of “State” under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The declaration of the Division Bench to the contrary in the case of Himanshu Dineshchandra Parekh (supra) is annulled. The reference stands answered accordingly," the bench said.

Case title: DR. INDRANIL BANDYOPADHYAY v/s INSTITUTE FOR PLASMA RESEARCH & ORS

R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1148 of 2025

Click Here To Read/Download Order