Kishor Madhukar Pinglikar v Automotive Research Association of India (2019)
⚖️ Kishor Madhukar Pinglikar v. Automotive Research Association of India (2019)
Citation: (2019) 3 SCC 510
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Justice A.K. Sikri and Justice S. Abdul Nazeer
Date of Judgment: 8 January 2019
🧾 1. Background of the Case
This case primarily dealt with the definition of "State" under Article 12 of the Constitution of India and whether the Automotive Research Association of India (ARAI) could be considered as an "instrumentality or agency of the State."
The petitioner, Kishor Madhukar Pinglikar, was an employee of ARAI and sought enforcement of fundamental rights against the organization, alleging unfair dismissal.
⚖️ 2. Legal Issue
Whether the Automotive Research Association of India (ARAI) falls within the definition of “State” under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, thereby making it amenable to a writ petition under Article 226?
📜 3. Article 12 – Relevant Provision
Article 12 defines “State” for the purpose of Part III (Fundamental Rights) and includes:
The Government and Parliament of India
The Government and Legislature of each State
All local or other authorities within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India
The term “other authorities” has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to include bodies that perform public duties or are substantially funded or controlled by the government.
🏢 4. About ARAI (Respondent)
ARAI is an autonomous body registered as a society under the Societies Registration Act, 1860.
It provides technical services and testing facilities in the field of automotive research and development.
Though it collaborates with the government and regulatory bodies like the Ministry of Road Transport, it does not receive substantial financial assistance from the government.
It earns revenue by providing services to private automobile manufacturers.
⚖️ 5. Judgment & Reasoning of the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that:
✅ A. ARAI is Not “State” under Article 12
ARAI is not created by a statute, nor is it owned or substantially financed by the government.
It is a non-governmental autonomous body, even though it occasionally works with or for government projects.
Mere performance of public functions is not sufficient to bring an organization within the ambit of Article 12.
There is no deep and pervasive control by the government over the internal affairs or administration of ARAI.
✅ B. Control Test Not Satisfied
The Court applied the "instrumentality or agency" test from Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi (1981).
It found that ARAI:
Has financial independence
Is not functionally or administratively controlled by the government
Does not perform exclusive sovereign functions
Hence, it cannot be treated as “State”, and writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is not maintainable against it.
🧑⚖️ 6. Key Case Law Referred
Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib (1981) 1 SCC 722
Laid down the instrumentality and agency test to determine whether a body falls under Article 12.
Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology (2002) 5 SCC 111
Clarified that mere functional similarity or public service is not enough; financial, administrative, and functional control by the government is essential.
📌 7. Significance of the Case
| Aspect | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Clarifies Article 12 | Reiterates that not all public-serving bodies are “State” under Article 12. |
| Writ Jurisdiction Limited | Private or autonomous bodies like ARAI not amenable to writ jurisdiction unless they meet the agency test. |
| Strengthens Autonomy | Protects the operational independence of autonomous institutions. |
📝 8. Summary
| Case Name | Kishor Madhukar Pinglikar v. ARAI (2019) 3 SCC 510 |
|---|---|
| Issue | Whether ARAI is “State” under Article 12 |
| Held | No, ARAI is not “State” |
| Reasoning | No deep or pervasive govt control, financial autonomy |
| Impact | Writ petition under Article 226 not maintainable against ARAI |
✅ 9. Conclusion
The Supreme Court in this case clarified that only those bodies that are financially, functionally, and administratively under the control of the government can be considered "State" under Article 12. The ARAI, being an autonomous, self-financed body, is not subject to writ jurisdiction, and employees cannot invoke constitutional remedies against it.
RELATED Blog
0 comments