Som Prakash Rekhi v. Union of India (1981) 1 SCC 449

Som Prakash Rekhi v. Union of India, 1981||Case Summary 

Introduction

1. In Som Prakash Rekhi v. Union of India, 1981 we will understand Article 12 of the Constitution of India which defines the term 'State' in a broad manner and will get to know it's better interpretation produced by the Apex Court.

Facts 

1. A company named "Burmah Shell Oil Storage Ltd." a government company has been taken over by the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (BPCL) another government company under the Burmah Shell Act, 1976.
2. The petitioner who was a clerk in the Burmah Shell Company, retired at the age of 50 was entitled to a qualifying pension and was also covered by the scheme under the Employees Provident Fund and Family Pension Act, 1952 which has been deducted by the BPCL on certain grounds as a result the Petitioner moved the Supreme Court under Article 32 while stating that the deduction from his original Pension (Rs.165.99) to Rs. 40.05 is inhuman and illegal and violation of his Fundamental Right under Article 19.

Issue 

1. Whether BPCL comes under the definition of the State. 
2. Whether the writ under Article 32 of the Constitution is maintainable against the BPCL, a government company. 

Court Observations

1. Article 12 is a definition with a broader goal that includes all the authorities which is under the control of the government under the term 'other authority'.
2. In the Sukhdev Case,1975 the Court said that important considerations to pronounce an entity as State agency are: 
1. The functional character of the entity should be government.
2. The entity should be controlled by the government.
3. The financial resources of the state should be the entity. 
3. In the Rajasthan Electricity Board case, 1967: The Court said that the expression "other authority" in Article 12 includes all constitutional or statutory authorities on whom power is conferred by law.
4.  J. Mathew said in his judgment that the Corporation which comes under Article 12 have the following features: 
1. The part of the profit of the Corporation goes to the Government. 
2. The government exercises control over the policy of the Corporation.
3. The Corporation carries on a business which has a public importance.
5. J. Mathew also says that the Corporations are agencies of the 'State' therefore the fact that these corporations have independent personalities in the law does not mean that they are not subject to the control of government.
6. A test, though not conclusive but only indicative, was formulated in the case of Airport Authority of India, 1979 to determine whether a body is a government agency or its instrument. These were- 
1. Whether it is funded by state resources and having government control over its functioning and policies.
2. Whether there is any deep and pervasive control of the government.
3. Whether the monopoly created or protected by the State.
4. Whether the operation of the Corporation is of public importance.

Decision 

1. The Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court answers positively on the present issue on the ground that the writ under Article 32 can be issued to implement the Fundamental Right and the Government company comes under the term 'other authority' mentioned in the Article 12.

Summary 

1. In Som Prakash Rekhi v. Union of India, 1981 the Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court discussed the issue of whether a writ can be issued under Article 32 to challenge BPCL, a government company that has reduced the original pension of the petitioner from Rs.165.99 to Rs.40.05. The Court observed that the writ under Article 32 shall be issued for enforcement of the Fundamental Rights given under Article 12-35 of the Constitution.
2. In the present case, the Court while referring the cases of Sukhdev, Rajasthan Electricity Board and the International Airport Authority of India held that BPCL has the following features that an authority should have to get included under the term "other authority" under Article 12 of the Constitution :
1. BPCL is under the control of the government.
2. The Profit of the said company goes to the government.
3. BPCL carried business which is of public importance.
3. As a result, the Court answered positively in the present issue and held that the writ is maintainable as the BPCL company falls within the enlarged definition of "State" under Article 12.

Law

1. Article 12 of the Constitution of India: 

• Unless the Context otherwise requires
• The "State' includes:-
1. The Government and Parliament of India,
2. The Government and the Legislature of each of the States,
3. All local or other authority within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India.