Institute For Plasma Research Amenable To Writ Jurisdiction As “State” Under Article 12: Gujarat High Court
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Gujarat Full Bench of Justice A.S. Supehia, Justice Aniruddha P. Mayee and Justice Pranav Trivedi has answered a reference on whether the Institute for Plasma Research can be treated as “State” under Article 12 of the Constitution. The question arose in proceedings initiated by an employee seeking relief against pay re-fixation and recovery of alleged excess salary, where maintainability depended on the Institute’s public-law character. Holding that the Institute is a statutory-rooted body linked to the Atomic Energy Act, entirely financed by the Union Government, and performing public-facing research and development for societal benefit, the Court concluded it falls within Article 12. It set aside the earlier contrary view and directed the appeal to be listed before the appropriate roster bench.
The dispute arose from a service-related grievance raised by an employee of the Institute for Plasma Research, a research institution functioning under the administrative framework of the Department of Atomic Energy, Government of India. The employee challenged actions concerning refixation of pay and recovery of alleged excess salary, which were undertaken following an audit objection. The maintainability of the writ petition was questioned on the ground that the Institute was not a “State” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India.
A Division Bench of the High Court had earlier held that the Institute for Plasma Research did not qualify as a “State,” relying primarily on its by-laws, funding pattern, and the absence of a notification under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. Owing to the conflicting interpretation of constitutional principles and statutory control, the matter was referred to a Larger Bench for determination of the specific question whether the Institute for Plasma Research could be regarded as “State” under Article 12.
The appellant relied upon statutory provisions, government resolutions, funding structure, administrative control, and service conditions applicable to employees, while the respondent Institute opposed the claim by asserting functional autonomy despite receiving full financial assistance from the Government of India.
The Larger Bench considered the reference on whether the Institute for Plasma Research qualifies as a “State” under Article 12 of the Constitution by examining undisputed factual and legal parameters emerging from the record. At the outset, the Court observed that “the respondent-IPR is 100% funded by the DAE, Government of India” and further recorded that “the respondent-IPR is also an integral part of the DAE, Government of India.”
The Bench noted that the statutory and administrative framework governing the Institute reflected decisive governmental control. It recorded that “as per the by-laws, more particularly Clause 1.1, the by-laws of the respondent-IPR come into effect only after approval of the Central Government.” The Court also observed that “vesting of properties is with the DAE, Government of India.”
While examining the governing structure, the Court stated that “the Governing Council comprises 10 personnel, of whom 08 belong to the DAE, Government of India, and only 02 do not belong to the DAE, Government of India.” This composition was considered relevant in determining the extent of administrative dominance exercised by the Central Government.
On service-related matters, the Bench observed that “the employment structure, i.e., adoption of pay scales, allowances, revision thereof, and creation of posts, cannot be undertaken without prior approval of the Government of India.” It further recorded that “the service conditions of all employees of the Institute… are adopted in line with the Central Civil Service (Conduct) Rules, 1964 and Central Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965.”
The Court noted that governmental policies were binding on the Institute, observing that “reservation for SC/ST/OBCs and persons with disabilities is governed by the rules and orders of the Government of India.” It also recorded that financial accountability was ensured as “the Council must submit an annual report on the working of the Institute to the Government of India, which includes the audited statement of accounts pertaining to the concerned financial year.”
A significant factor stated by the Bench was the overriding authority of the Government. The Court observed that “as per Clause 58 of the by-laws, any directives of the Government or Department shall be binding on the Institute and shall have overriding effect over any provision of the by-laws, statutes, or rules of the Institute.”
Distinguishing the Institute from entities previously held not to be ‘State,’ the Bench recorded that “historically, the respondent-IPR is an entity created under a statute having its roots in the Atomic Energy Act, 1962.” The Court further observed that “the DAE has full control over the respondent-IPR and can issue directives as it deems necessary for the respondent-IPR to follow.”
On a cumulative assessment, the Bench stated that the established facts demonstrated deep and pervasive governmental control, concluding that the Institute for Plasma Research satisfies the constitutional requirements of being a “State” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India.
The Court answered the reference by holding 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.”
“Registry shall list the captioned Letters Patent Appeal before the Bench assigned such roster.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Asim Pandya, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Alok M. Thakkar, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Munjaal M. Bhatt, Advocate, Ms. Khushi Mehta, Advocate, Mr. Harsheel D. Shukla, Advocate
Case Title: Dr. Indranil Bandyopadhyay v. Institute for Plasma Research & Others
Case Number: Letters Patent Appeal No. 1148 of 2025
Bench: Justice A.S. Supehia, Justice Aniruddha P. Mayee, Justice Pranav Trivedi
