LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the National Co-operative Consumer Federation of India Limited (NCCF) is a “State” under Article 12 of the Constitution of India.
CASE TYPE: Constitutional Law, Writ Petition
Case Name: N.C.C.F. Employees Union (Regd)(Recognized) & Anr. vs. Union of India & Anr.
Judgment Date: 07 January 2022
Introduction
Date of the Judgment: 07 January 2022
Citation: Not Available
Judges: Uday Umesh Lalit, J., S. Ravindra Bhat, J.
Is the National Co-operative Consumer Federation of India Limited (NCCF) subject to the writ jurisdiction of the High Courts? The Supreme Court recently addressed this question indirectly by allowing the withdrawal of two writ petitions. These petitions sought to declare NCCF as a “State” under Article 12 of the Constitution, which would make it amenable to writ jurisdiction. The core issue revolved around whether NCCF, a cooperative federation, performs functions that qualify it as an instrumentality of the state.
The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices Uday Umesh Lalit and S. Ravindra Bhat, permitted the withdrawal of the petitions, leaving all issues open for future adjudication in appropriately instituted proceedings. This decision effectively sidestepped the substantive question of NCCF’s status under Article 12, focusing instead on procedural aspects.
Case Background
The case originated from conflicting judgments by the High Court of Judicature at Patna and the High Court of Delhi regarding whether NCCF is a “State” under Article 12 of the Constitution. The High Court of Delhi, in J.S. Arneja vs. N.C.C.F. 1994 (28) DRJ 546, held that NCCF is not a State. However, the High Court of Judicature at Patna, in its judgment dated 11.09.2008 in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7042 of 1995 and in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 9940 of 1996, held that NCCF is a State. This view of the Patna High Court was upheld by a Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal No. 926 of 2008 and 863 of 2008.
NCCF challenged the Patna High Court’s decision in Civil Appeals No. 1918-1919 of 2012 before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal on 06.02.2012 but refused to stay the Patna High Court’s judgment. Subsequently, NCCF sought to withdraw the appeals, which was allowed by the Supreme Court on 01.08.2019.
The petitioners in the present case, N.C.C.F. Employees Union, argued that NCCF’s withdrawal of its appeals before the Supreme Court implied acceptance of the Patna High Court’s view that NCCF is a “State” under Article 12. They sought orders directing NCCF to implement various pay commission recommendations and other benefits.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1994 | High Court of Delhi in J.S. Arneja vs. N.C.C.F. held that NCCF is not a State under Article 12. |
| 11.09.2008 | High Court of Judicature at Patna held that NCCF is a State under Article 12 in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7042 of 1995 and in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 9940 of 1996. |
| 07.07.2011 | Division Bench of Patna High Court upheld the single judge’s decision holding NCCF as a State in Letters Patent Appeal No. 926 of 2008 and 863 of 2008. |
| 06.02.2012 | Supreme Court granted leave to appeal in Civil Appeal Nos. 1918-1919 of 2012 against the Patna High Court’s decision but refused to grant a stay. |
| 01.08.2019 | Supreme Court allowed NCCF to withdraw its appeals. |
| 07.01.2022 | Supreme Court allowed withdrawal of the present writ petitions, leaving all issues open. |
Course of Proceedings
The High Court of Judicature at Patna had ruled that the NCCF was a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. This decision was challenged by the NCCF before the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos.1918-1919 of 2012. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal but did not stay the High Court’s order. Subsequently, the NCCF sought to withdraw the appeals, which was allowed by the Supreme Court.
Legal Framework
The core legal issue revolves around Article 12 of the Constitution of India, which defines the term “State” for the purpose of enforcing fundamental rights. Article 12 states:
“In this part, unless the context otherwise requires, the State includes the Government and Parliament of India and the Government and the Legislature of each of the States and all local or other authorities within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India.”
The interpretation of “other authorities” under Article 12 has been a subject of extensive judicial scrutiny. The Supreme Court has developed various tests to determine whether an entity qualifies as a “State,” including the degree of government control, financial dependence, functional character, and whether it performs public functions.
Arguments
The petitioners, N.C.C.F. Employees Union, argued that:
- NCCF’s withdrawal of its appeals against the Patna High Court’s decision implies acceptance of the ruling that NCCF is a “State” under Article 12.
- Therefore, NCCF is bound to implement the pay commission recommendations and other benefits as claimed in the petition.
The Union of India, represented by the Additional Solicitor General, submitted that:
- No relief could be claimed against the Central Government in this matter.
| Submissions | Petitioner’s Arguments | Respondent’s Arguments |
|---|---|---|
| Status of NCCF | ✓ NCCF’s withdrawal of appeals implies acceptance of Patna High Court’s ruling that it is a “State” under Article 12. | – |
| Relief Sought | ✓ NCCF should implement pay commission recommendations and other benefits. | ✓ No relief can be claimed against the Central Government. |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court did not frame any specific issues for determination, as it allowed the withdrawal of the writ petitions. However, the core issue underlying the petitions was:
- Whether the National Co-operative Consumer Federation of India Limited (NCCF) is a “State” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The Court did not make any determination on the issue of whether NCCF is a State under Article 12. Instead, it allowed the petitioners to withdraw their petitions with the liberty to raise the issue in appropriate proceedings.
| Issue | Court’s Treatment | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Whether NCCF is a “State” under Article 12 | Not decided | The Court allowed withdrawal of the petition, leaving the issue open for future adjudication. |
Authorities
The Court did not rely on any specific authorities in its order, as it primarily dealt with the procedural aspect of withdrawal of the petitions. However, the following cases and legal provisions were mentioned in the background of the case:
| Authority | Court | How it was used |
|---|---|---|
| J.S. Arneja vs. N.C.C.F. 1994 (28) DRJ 546 | High Court of Delhi | Held that NCCF is not a State under Article 12. |
| Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7042 of 1995 and in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 9940 of 1996 | High Court of Judicature at Patna | Held that NCCF is a State under Article 12. |
| Letters Patent Appeal No. 926 of 2008 and 863 of 2008 | High Court of Judicature at Patna | Upheld the single judge’s decision holding NCCF as a State under Article 12. |
| Article 12, Constitution of India | Supreme Court of India | Defines “State” for the purpose of enforcing fundamental rights. |
Judgment
The Supreme Court allowed the withdrawal of both writ petitions, leaving all issues open for future adjudication. The Court did not express any opinion on the merits of the case or the status of NCCF as a “State” under Article 12.
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Petitioner’s argument that NCCF’s withdrawal of appeals implies acceptance of its status as a “State”. | The court did not comment on this argument. |
| Petitioner’s prayer for implementation of pay commission recommendations and other benefits. | The court did not comment on this argument. |
| Union of India’s submission that no relief can be claimed against the Central Government. | The court did not comment on this argument. |
The court did not make any pronouncement on the authorities.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The primary consideration for the Court was to allow the petitioners to pursue their claims in appropriate proceedings, given the withdrawal of appeals by the NCCF in previous litigation. The Court did not delve into the merits of the case or the legal arguments regarding NCCF’s status under Article 12.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Procedural Fairness | 100% |
| Ratio | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 20% |
| Law | 80% |
The Court’s decision was primarily driven by procedural considerations, focusing on allowing the petitioners to pursue their claims in a more appropriate forum. The Court did not make any substantive findings on the legal issues involved.
The Court did not delve into the merits of the case, and thus did not consider any alternative interpretations.
The decision was reached based on the principle that the petitioners should have the opportunity to litigate their claims in a proper forum, especially given the procedural history of the case.
Key Takeaways
- The Supreme Court did not decide whether NCCF is a “State” under Article 12 of the Constitution.
- The Court allowed the withdrawal of the writ petitions, with liberty to the petitioners to file fresh proceedings.
- The issue of NCCF’s status as a “State” remains open for future adjudication.
Directions
The Supreme Court did not issue any specific directions, other than allowing the withdrawal of the petitions and granting liberty to the petitioners to file fresh proceedings.
Development of Law
The judgment does not lay down any new legal principle or change the existing law. The issue of whether NCCF is a “State” under Article 12 remains undecided.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision in this case primarily focused on procedural aspects, allowing the petitioners to withdraw their petitions and pursue their claims in appropriate proceedings. The substantive question of whether NCCF is a “State” under Article 12 was not addressed and remains open for future determination.
Category
Parent Category: Constitutional Law
Child Category: Article 12, Constitution of India
Parent Category: Cooperative Law
Child Category: National Co-operative Consumer Federation of India Limited
Parent Category: Constitution of India
Child Category: Article 12, Constitution of India
FAQ
Q: What was the main issue in the case?
A: The main issue was whether the National Co-operative Consumer Federation of India Limited (NCCF) is a “State” under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, making it subject to writ jurisdiction.
Q: What did the Supreme Court decide?
A: The Supreme Court allowed the withdrawal of the writ petitions, leaving the issue of NCCF’s status as a “State” open for future adjudication.
Q: What does it mean for NCCF employees?
A: The decision means that the issue of whether NCCF is bound to implement pay commission recommendations and other benefits remains unresolved, and employees may need to pursue their claims in fresh proceedings.
Q: What is Article 12 of the Constitution?
A: Article 12 defines the term “State” for the purpose of enforcing fundamental rights. It includes the government, parliament, state legislatures, and all local or other authorities under the control of the government.
Q: Why did the Supreme Court not decide the issue?
A: The Court allowed the withdrawal of the petitions, focusing on procedural fairness and allowing the petitioners to pursue their claims in a more appropriate forum.