9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether VSNL (now TCL) is a "State" or "other authority" under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. 2. Whether VSNL/TCL is performing a public function and thus amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Issue 1: Whether VSNL (now TCL) is a "State" or "other authority" under Article 12 of the Constitution of India: 3. The Bombay High Court dismissed Writ Petition No.2139 of 2007 and Writ Petition No.2652 of 2007 in limine, leading to appeals before the Supreme Court. 4. The Delhi High Court dismissed ten writ petitions filed by former VSNL employees, questioning the maintainability of writ petitions against VSNL, as it was neither a State within the meaning of Article 12 nor performing any public function. 21. The appellants argued that VSNL, despite disinvestment, remained under substantial government control and thus should be considered a State under Article 12. 38. The Supreme Court stated that for TCL to be declared as a State or other authority under Article 12, it must meet the well-recognized parameters laid down in previous judgments. 39. The Court concluded that TCL does not fall within the definition of State or other authority under Article 12, as the Government of India holds only 26.12% shares, which does not indicate deep and pervasive control. 43. The Court found that TCL does not enjoy a monopoly status and the government does not exercise deep and pervasive control over its management or policy-making. Issue 2: Whether VSNL/TCL is performing a public function and thus amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India:45. The Court noted that functions performed by VSNL/TCL are not of such nature that could be considered a public function. The services provided are commercial and available upon payment of charges. 47. The Court held that merely performing functions initially carried out by a government department does not make VSNL/TCL's functions public. 50. The Court examined the functions of VSNL/TCL against factors from the Human Rights Act, 1998, and concluded that they do not constitute a public function. 52. The Court stated that in order for a body to be performing a public function, it must seek to achieve some collective benefit for the public or a section of the public, which is not the case with VSNL/TCL. 53. The Court suggested that appellants could seek redress through normal remedies available under law if their services were terminated in breach of assurances. Conclusion:55. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, holding that VSNL/TCL is neither a State nor performing a public function, and thus, not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226. 57. The writ petition by VSNL Scheduled Castes/Tribes employees was also dismissed as not maintainable.
|
