Kiran Raj

The Calcutta High Court has dismissed a writ petition seeking a direction to the Publishers and Booksellers Guild (the Guild) to allocate a stall at the 48th International Kolkata Book Fair. The court ruled that the Guild, a private entity registered under the Societies Registration Act, is not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The petition was filed by Vishva Hindu Parishad, Dakshinbanga, a registered society, and its honorary vice president. The society claimed to engage in religious and philanthropic activities, including the publication of books and magazines, and has participated in the Kolkata Book Fair since 2011.

The petitioners applied for a stall measuring 600 square feet for the upcoming fair, scheduled from January 28, 2025, to February 9, 2025. The petitioners alleged that their application was neither processed nor acknowledged by the Guild, prompting them to approach the court for relief.

The petitioners argued that the Kolkata Book Fair had attained the status of a public event due to the scale of its organization and the financial and infrastructural support provided by the State of West Bengal. They submitted that the Guild’s actions in denying their stall allocation were arbitrary and discriminatory, violating their rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(a), and 21 of the Constitution.

Citing previous judgments, including Zee Telefilms Ltd. v. Union of India and BCCI v. Cricket Association of Bihar, the petitioners contended that entities performing public functions are amenable to writ jurisdiction. They claimed that the Guild’s role in organizing the fair, supported by state aid, amounted to a public function and required judicial oversight.

The respondents, including the State of West Bengal and the Guild, opposed the petition. The Advocate General for West Bengal argued that the Guild is a private entity with autonomy over its decision-making processes, including participant selection, and is therefore not subject to writ jurisdiction. The Guild maintained that it did not infringe on the petitioners’ fundamental rights and that the petitioners had no enforceable right to demand a stall allocation.

Justice Amrita Sinha, examined whether the Guild’s functions could be categorized as public duties warranting judicial intervention under Article 226 of the Constitution. The court noted that the Guild is a private entity registered under the Societies Registration Act and is not a State or an instrumentality of the State under Article 12 of the Constitution.

The judgment stated: “The Guild, being a private entity, cannot be treated as ‘the State’ under Article 12 of the Constitution. Its functions, though supported by infrastructural aid from the State, are not synonymous with public duties or governmental obligations.”

Addressing the petitioners’ reliance on judgments regarding entities performing public functions, the court observed that those cases involved national-level entities with monopoly status, such as the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI). It noted that the Guild’s role in organizing the book fair did not rise to a similar level of public accountability.

The court further stated: “Financial aid or infrastructural support extended by the State does not transform the fair into a State-controlled event or elevate the Guild to a status akin to the State.”

The court recorded that the petitioners had a history of participation in the book fair but held that this did not establish an enforceable legal right to future allocations. It stated: “The petitioners may have a legitimate expectation due to their past participation, but such expectations do not create an enforceable right through writ jurisdiction.”

The Calcutta High Court dismissed the petition, ruling that the Guild’s refusal to allot a stall did not violate the petitioners’ fundamental rights. It held that the Guild retained full discretion over participant selection and stated: “There may be valid reasons for the petitioners to feel aggrieved, but the remedy does not lie before this Court. Private law remedies remain available.”

The court refrained from adjudicating on whether the petitioners qualified as publishers under the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867, leaving the issue open for resolution in a more appropriate forum.

The judgment concluded: “In view of the discussions made hereinabove, no relief can be granted to the petitioners in the instant case. The writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.”

Case Title: Vishva Hindu Parishad, Dakshinbanga & Anr. v. The State of West Bengal & Ors.

Case Number: WPA No. 1373 of 2025

Bench: Justice Amrita Sinha

[Read/Download order]