An important constitutional question was brought before the Supreme Court of India in the case of Dileep Kumar Pandey v. Union of India and Others (Civil Appeal Nos. 10899 & 11378 of 2013).
The question at hand was whether or not an ostensibly private school could be considered “the State” or a “authority” in accordance with Article 12 of the Constitution, and therefore fall under the writ jurisdiction of the High Court.
This opinion, which was handed out on May 21, 2025 by Justices Abhay S. Oka and Augustine George Masih, investigates the ways in which public control and public money might transform a private body into a constitutional state instrumentality.
For More Updates & Regular Notes Join Our Whats App Group (https://chat.whatsapp.com/DkucckgAEJbCtXwXr2yIt0) and Telegram Group ( https://t.me/legalmaestroeducators ) contact@legalmaestros.com.
Details on the situation
Through the establishment of Air Force Schools in 1966, the Indian Air Force (IAF) aimed to provide educational opportunities for the children of its members. To oversee the management of various educational institutions, including the Air Force School located in Bamrauli, the IAF Educational and Cultural Society (often referred to as “the Society”) was established in 1987.
The School’s Managing Committee, which is comprised of active Indian Air Force officers, was responsible for the recruitment of teachers such as Dileep Kumar Pandey and Sanjay Kumar Sharma to serve under contracts that were governed by the committee.
Both Pandey and Sharma had their appointments terminated or made problematic as a result of administrative reshuffles and purported disciplinary problems. As a result, they approached the Allahabad High Court in order to file writ petitions in accordance with Article 226.
For More Updates & Regular Notes Join Our Whats App Group (https://chat.whatsapp.com/DkucckgAEJbCtXwXr2yIt0) and Telegram Group ( https://t.me/legalmaestroeducators )
A Legal Problem and a Brief History of Procedures
It was initially decided by the High Court’s Single Judge that the School was a “State” in accordance with Article 12, which meant that its judgments might be subject to judicial scrutiny.
That conclusion was overturned by a Division Bench, which ruled that the School is a private business and dismissed the writ petitions due to a lack of jurisdiction. This decision was made through an appeal.
The case was brought to the Supreme Court by means of two civil appeals, which challenged the decision of the Division Bench to not recognize the School as an authority for constitutional writs during the proceedings.
Provisions of the Constitution That Are Involved
The term “the State” is defined in Article 12 to encompass government bodies as well as “all local or other authorities” that are under the supervision of the government.
In accordance with Article 226 of the Constitution, High Courts are granted the ability to issue prerogative writs, which include mandamus and certiorari, against any “person or authority” in order to enforce basic and other legal rights.
The most important question was whether or not the definition of state in Article 12 applies to the Air Force School, which would therefore make it possible for the High Court to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226.
Examining the State or Authority in accordance with Article 12
In the cases of Ajay Hasia and Pradeep Kumar Biswas, the Supreme Court reiterated its previous decisions that no single circumstance may be considered crucial.
Rather, it is necessary to conduct a comprehensive evaluation: does the organization in question demonstrate a level of financial, administrative, or functional dominance by the government that is so pervasive that it makes it an instrumentality of the state? The control must be specific, direct, and all-encompassing; it is not sufficient for the government to merely regulate the situation.
Evaluation of the Public Control and Financial Support
The Israeli Air Force (IAF) was responsible for providing the land and completely funding the construction of the school buildings using public funds (defence). The salary schedules for teachers and personnel were established by the Headquarters of the Air Force, and the Managing Committee was given directives that required them to adhere to the Education Code of the Indian Air Force.
The ultimate approval of major policy decisions regarding affiliation, admissions, and staff punishment was determined by officers of the Israeli Air Force (IAF). Ex-officio members of the International Air Force served as members of the Board of Governors that oversaw the Society itself. As a result, the IAF maintained a profound and all-encompassing control over the operations of the School.
Identifying the Differences Between Public Duties and Private Contracts
Despite the fact that private organizations are able to carry out public functions, the Supreme Court stressed that the institution falls under Article 12 when it is executing a public obligation, which in this case is the provision of education, in conjunction with widespread government control. Rather than being just commercial contracts, the service conditions of the teaching staff were governed by rules established by the Air Force authorities.
These authorities also had the authority to terminate or reprimand employees without being constrained by any statutory requirements.
The Answers to the Most Important Questions
There were two main issues that the Court had to deal with. Before anything else, the question that needs to be answered is whether or not a state-funded and -managed educational institution that is legally formed as a society may conceal its state-based nature by using the designation of a non-profit organization.
In the second place, the question is whether or not the rights of teachers to fair procedures and remedies are derived from public law principles when the institution in question is, in essence, an arm of the government. According to the Court’s decision, protecting such institutions from judicial review would be detrimental to the constitutional safeguards that are in place.
The Conclusion of the Supreme Court
After applying the cumulative-control test, the Supreme Court came to the conclusion that Article 12 of the Constitution recognizes the Air Force School at Bamrauli as a “authority.”
The International Air Force (IAF) became a constitutional instrumentality as a result of its widespread use of government funds, administration by serving officers, adoption of government pay scales, and use of disciplinary authorities on behalf of the IAF. In light of this, decisions made by the School that have an impact on the working conditions of teachers are subject to writ jurisdiction in accordance with Article 226.
Possible Consequences of the Decision
As a result of this historic decision, the scope of public law monitoring over educational institutions that are closely associated with government organizations has been expanded. In doing so, it reaffirms that the appearance of a private society cannot be used to exempt organizations from constitutional accountability when those organizations are performing public responsibilities under the control of the government.
The right to judicial review of adverse decisions is granted to teachers and staff members working in such institutions. This ensures that the decisions are fair and that constitutional provisions are adhered to.
In the case of Dileep Kumar Pandey v. Union of India and Others, a powerful assertion was made that constitutional protections cannot be circumvented by corporate or societal structures where the government exercises extensive control.
The Supreme Court has enhanced the rule of law in the field of public education and employment by focusing on substance rather than form. This has ensured that entities that are materially indistinguishable from state organs are unable to restrict redress to ordinary people and employees.
