Case Summary: Ajay Hasia vs Khalid Mujib Sehravardi and Ors. (1981)

• Title: Ajay Hasia vs Khalid Mujib Sehravardi and Ors. 
• Citation: AIR 1981 SC 487 
• Court: Supreme Court of India 
• Bench: Justice P.N. Bhagwati, Justice Y.V. Chgandrachud, Justice V.R Krishnaiyer, Justice  Syed Murtaza Fazalali, Justice A.D. Koshal 
• Date of Judgement: 13th November 1980. 
• Relevant Statutes and Key provisions: Article 12, Article 14 and Article 32 of the  constition of India and the Jammu and Kashmir Registration of Societies Act, 1898. 

Facts 

Regional Engineering College (REC), Srinagar is one of several RECs established by  government of India and Jammu & Kashmir under a scheme to advance and raise technical  education across the country, especially within the State of Jammu and Kashmir. Moreover,  this college was one of the fifteen aided college in Jammu & Kashmir aided by the central  government. It was established under a Memorandum of Association and under the Jammu and  Kashmir Registration of Societies Act, 1898 it was registered as a “Society”. The management  and administration were carried out by the Society. 

The college was the decision-making authority rested with the Board of Governors which  composed of members appointed by both government of India and Jammu & Kashmir. The  Board comprised representatives from the State Government of Jammu and Kashmir, the  Government of India, the University of Jammu and Kashmir, the All-India Council for  Technical Education, the Central Advisory Board of Education and even from the Ministry of  Education and Science of the Government of India. The principal was an ex-offio member of  the board and the chairman was appointed government of India. The Jammu & Kashmir  Government also donated the college’s land for which the Central Government paid for the  infrastructure and building projects. This composition reflected the joint administrative control  exercised by both central government and Jammu & Kashmir over the college. Despite, such  extensive governmental functions, the g college was registered as a society which is  autonomous entity.  

In April 1979, the college invited applications for first-semester B.E. admissions across various  engineering branches for the 1979–80 academic year.

The admission process was conducted as per a resolution dated 4th June 1974 under Rule 15(4)  of the Society. It comprised two stages: a written test in Physics, Chemistry, Mathematics, and  English (100 marks), followed by a viva voce (50 marks) assessing general knowledge,  understanding of specific phenomena (15 marks each), and personality traits including  extracurriculars (10 marks). 

The petitioner, Ajay Hasia, applied for admission to the B.E. Course at the college in response  to a notice issued by the college and appeared in the written test held on 16th and 17th June,  1979. Subsequently, the petitioner thereafter required to appear before the committee of three  members for viva voce interview test. But the interview did not last for more than 2 to 3 minutes  per candidate on average and none of the questions were relevant to the four topics of  prescribed criteria for awarding marks in the viva voce. Instead, the questions were based on  percentage, residence etc… When the Admission were announced, it found out that despite  securing a good mark they were unable to secure admission. The reason for the non-selection for admission was the low marks awarded in the viva voce, even though the marks secured in  the written exam were exceptionally good. Conversely, The candidates who were graded low  in written test, obtained high marks in the viva-voce test. 

The petitioners presented a chart comparing their marks with those of selected candidates,  showing that while the successful candidates had low scores in the written exams but they  received disproportionately high marks in the viva voce. Therefore, aggrieved by this process  of selection, the petitioners approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court by filing a writ petition  under Article 32 of the constitution, challenging the validity of the admissions made through  this procedure. 

Issues: 

• Whether a society can be considered as “state” within the definition and meaning of the  term provided under Article 12 of the constitution? 
• What are the “other authorities” envisaged within the meaning of “state” under Article  12? 
• Whether the admission procedure of the college is violative of Article 14 as alleged by  the petitioners?

Petitioners Argument: 

Ajay Hasia and the other petitioners challenged the status of Regional Engineering College,  Srinagar, contending that it qualified as a ‘State’ within the meaning of Article 12 of the Indian  Constitution. The petitioners primarily contended that, despite being registered as a society, the  institution functioned as a government entity, having been founded through a government  directive and receiving substantial financial support from both the Jammu and Kashmir State  Government and the Central Government of India. 

The petitioners argued that despite being registered as a society, the college functioned as a  government-controlled body and should be treated as a “State” under Article 12, based on its  core operations and oversight. 

The petitioner also argued that the admission procedure was arbitrary as ignorance of marks  obtained by the petitioner in the written examination, determination of candidates solely on the  basis viva-voce examination, conducting the interview for a short period and by asking  irrelevant questions ignoring the four criteria, instead the questions focused on factors like  academic percentage and residence, undermining the fairness and credibility of the selection  process. They also argued that interviews were influenced by the personal biases and assumptions, allowing excessive discretion that could lead to favouritism, nepotism, or  discrimination. Additionally, They pointed out that 50 marks was allotted for the viva- voce  and 100 marks for the written, resulted in one-third of the total evaluation being based on a  brief and subjective interview. This disproportionate weightage, they argued, compromised the  fairness of the selection process and amounted to a violation of the constitutional guarantee of  equality under Article 14. 

Respondent Argument: 

The Respondents are arguing that Regional Engineering College (REC), Srinagar should not  be classified as a “State” under Article 12 of the Indian Constitution. The crux of their argument  rested on the college’s legal status and formal structure. Although the college was established  and funded by the government, and government representatives were part of its Board of  Governors. They argued, however, that the college functioned as an independent entity. It was  formally registered as a society which gives the college autonomy, making it distinct from a  government department or agency and has had its own rules and policies, and was not directly  governed by government laws. They argued that the college’s self-governing structure and legal 

form should be taken into account by the court, and that the college’s level of governmental  influence was insufficient to constitute it as a “State”. They, therefore stated that society is not  an “Authority” within the meaning of “State”, under Article 12 of the Indian Constitution and  hence the writ was not maintainable before the Court. 

The Respondents further argued that no complaint could be sustained against Regional  Engineering College, Srinagar, for allegedly granting admissions in an arbitrary manner or  violating the right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution. They maintained that the  college did not qualify as a “State” within the meaning of Article 12, and therefore, the  fundamental rights enshrined in Part III of the Constitution could not be enforced against it. To  support their position, the Respondents relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Sabhajit Tewary  v. Union of India (1975), which held that a society registered under the Societies Registration  Act, 1860, does not constitute an “authority” under Article 12. They also referred to Sukhdev  Singh v. Bhagatram (1975) to reinforce their interpretation. Their central claim was that the  college’s legal status as a society and its operational autonomy placed it outside the scope of  Article 12, making it distinct from a governmental body. 

In response to the petitioners’ objections, the college argued that the viva voce test served as a  fair mechanism to evaluate candidates based on comparative talent, applying a consistent  standard across applicants. They claimed this approach was more effective than a qualifying  test, which merely assessed comparative academic scores. Additionally, the college rejected  the allegation that the interviews were brief or irrelevant. It stated that each interview lasted 6– 8 minutes, with questions directly tied to viva voce subjects, ensuring relevant and consistent  evaluation. 

Judgement: 

the court upheld the petitioners’ stance on the first issue, confirming that the writ petition was  legally admissible. The court taking into consideration the arguments presented by the  petitioners and after noticing the nature of the “Society”, the court ruled that it is an agency of  government and therefore within the meaning of “other authorities” the Regional Engineering  College fell within the scope of Article 12. They stressed that the manner in which the  corporation was created, whether by legislation or statute was irrelevant; the key consideration  was whether it functioned as an instrumentality or agency of the government. The key question  was not how the juristic person came into existence but why it was created.

Moreover, the court (Justice P.N. Bhagwati) formulated a test to assess whether a particular  entity qualifies as an instrumentality or agency of the State within the meaning of Article 12. They are: 

• When the government holds the entire share capital of an entity, it serves as a strong  indication that the entity functions as an instrumentality of the State. 
• When the government provides financial aid that covers nearly all of the body’s  expenses, it may imply that the body possesses a governmental character. • The existence of a monopoly status conferred or safeguarded by the State is a significant  factor in determining the nature of the entity. 
• When state had extensive and pervasive control over the body. 
• If an entity performs functions of public significance that are intimately linked to  governmental duties, it becomes a pertinent factor in determining whether the entity  qualifies as a government instrumentality. 

Regarding the Article 14, the Supreme court not find any clear evidence of bias in the selection  process. The court reaffirmed that state-run institutions have the freedom to design their own  selection procedures, provided they are reasonable and non-discriminatory. So the college acted  in accordance the procedure and no evidence of Bias. However, the court found that 50 out of  150 marks were allocated to the viva voce was excessive, and recommended that future  admission processes reduce the proportion of marks assigned to interviews. The court stated  there will be no reversal of admissions as it would be unfair students already admitted and not  to be granted admission based on suspicion of bias only. Further, the court clarified that  classification or ranking does not violate article 14. The court rejected the argument that  interviews are unsuitable as Viva voce is a legitimate part of Indian selection systems. The  court found no proof that the viva voce was too brief or irrelevant. With interviews averaging  4–5 minutes, candidates were fairly assessed. It held that the possibility of misuse alone doesn’t  justify removing interviews from the selection process. The court directed the college to revise  its selection process, reducing the weightage of viva voce to avoid future discrepancies. 

Ratio Decendi 

The court establishing the principle that the formal status of an institution, whether registered  as a society or not, is less consequential than its functional character.it held that functional, structural, and financial acting as an instrumentality or agency of the government, it can be  classified as a ‘State’ under Article 12. 

• Functional control: Whether the institution performs public or governmental  functions. 
• Structural control: Whether its governing body is dominated by government  nominees. 
• Financial control: Whether it is substantially funded or financially dependent on the  government. 

Final Decision 

The Court ruled that even a government-funded society like the Regional Engineering College  is a “State” with the meaning of “other authorities” under Article 12, making it subject to  fundamental rights. The court formulated a six-factor test to determine whether an entity  qualifies as a “State” under Article 12. It also condemned arbitrary viva voce as violating  Article 14, but didn’t cancel existing admissions due to practical reasons. 

References: 

1. iPleaders, ‘Ajay Hasia vs Khalid Mujib AIR 1981 SC 487’ (iPleaders, 28 July 2020)  https://blog.ipleaders.in/ajay-hasia-vs-khalid-mujib-air-1981-sc487/#Jammu_and_Kashmir_Registration_of_Societies_Act_1898 accessed 28  September 2025. 
2. Law Corner, ‘Ajay Hasia v Khalid Mujib – A Case Analysis’ (Law Corner, 6 July 2020)  https://lawcorner.in/ajay-hasia-v-khalid-mujib-a-case-analysis/#Facts_of_the_Case accessed 28 September 2025. 
3. LawBhoomi, ‘Ajay Hasia v Khalid Mujib – Case Analysis’ (LawBhoomi, 17 July 2020)  https://lawbhoomi.com/ajay-hasia-v-khalid-mujib/#Judgement_in_Ajay_Hasia_v_Khalid_Mujib accessed 28 September 2025.