Dr. Janet Jeyapaul v. SRM University: Private Organisations and Public Rights

Abstract

The case follows the story of Janet Jeyapaul a lecturer at the SRM University, India. The university dismissed Dr Jeyapaul claiming that she had not taken the required classes and citing complaints from students. Dr Jeyapaul took SRM university to court arguing that her fundamental rights under article 12 of the Indian constitution had been violated. The case is intended for students looking to explore how the law affects our economic, political and social life.

This case was prepared for inclusion in Sage Business Cases primarily as a basis for classroom discussion or self-study, and is not meant to illustrate either effective or ineffective management styles. Nothing herein shall be deemed to be an endorsement of any kind. This case is for scholarly, educational, or personal use only within your university, and cannot be forwarded outside the university or used for other commercial purposes.

2024 Sage Publications, Inc. All Rights Reserved

You are not authorized to view Teaching Notes. Please contact your librarian for instructor access or sign in to your existing instructor profile.

Resources

Introduction to the Fundamental Rights

Every society has a governing mechanism. In the modern times, it has come to be called the state. A constitution, literally put, constitutes the state. India has had its constitution since 1950. The Constitution of India constitutes India as a union of States. Towards this, it creates the Union and the States. The Union and each of the States has its legislature and the executive. The legislative domains of the Union and the States is defined and demarcated in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. The Parliament makes laws for the Union of India and these are administered by the Central Government. Similarly, the State Legislature makes laws on the subject of its competency and the state government executes the laws.

Legislative, executive and judiciary are the three wings of modern constitutions. The courts interpret the law and settle disputes. The Constitution of India creates the Supreme Court as the apex court. Next in hierarchy are the High Courts in the States. These are followed by the district level and sub-district level courts. The Union can have a dispute with a State. Similarly, a State can have a dispute with another State. The Supreme Court decides these disputes according to the constitutional provisions. For most disputes, a person would need to take a dispute first to a sub-district level court. The dispute can then move in appeal up the chain to the Supreme Court. For this reason, the Supreme Court and High Courts are known as the appellate courts. However, an individual can approach the Supreme Court and High Court directly for the enforcement of his fundamental rights. The Fundamental Rights are not only very substantive rights, one can go to the highest court for their violation. We turn to the nature of this significant right.

The Fundamental Rights

The Constitution of India, thus, creates the governing mechanism and vests unfettered powers in the institutions of the State. The power of the state is in imposing itself on the individuals. The modern constitutions are concerned whether unlimited power with the state will lead to subjugation of individual freedom and liberty. Thus, the Constitution of India carves out individual freedom and protects it from the power of the state. It does this by including a chapter making certain basic rights of the individuals inviolate. The chapter is titled ‘Chapter 3: The Fundamental Rights’. The chapter, thus, recognises the tension between the state and the individual and protects the individual. The chapter runs from Article 12 to 35. It recognises the right to equality, freedom, freedom of religion and cultural and educational rights.

Article 12 defines the State. Article 13 declares that any law made by the State, in contravention of the Fundamental Rights listed in the chapter, is void. Law includes all forms and instruments by which the state works, including, acts, rules, notifications, bye-laws, regulations and government orders. Article 14 to Article 30 list the several rights of equality and freedom. The rights against the state would be meaningless if their enforcement could not be guaranteed. Towards this, Article 32 gives direct access to the Supreme Court for the enforcement of the Fundamental Rights. The article gives wide powers to the Supreme Court to give any directions and orders for the enforcement of the Fundamental Rights. The constitution thus, splits the organs of the state, legislature and the executive on one side and the judiciary on the other. In this division, an independent judiciary ensures the protection of the Fundamental Rights of the individuals against its erosion by the combine of the legislature and the executive. In addition to this, Article 226, which defines the powers of the High Courts, gives direct access to the High Courts for protection of the Fundamental Rights. Right to equality and freedoms find wide use in every sphere of life, including businesses.

Equality and Freedoms

Article 14 is on equality before the law. It reads: “The State shall not deny to any person, equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws.” The Article gives protection against the state acting in an arbitrary manner. In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, 1 the Supreme Court thus expressed its scope:

“Art. 14 strikes at arbitrariness in State action and ensures fairness and equality of treatment. The principle of reasonableness, which legally as well as philosophically, is an essential element of equality or non-arbitrariness pervades Art. 14 like a brooding omnipresence.”

In Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India, 2 the question was about the Airport Authority awarding a contract without following the prescribed procedure. The Supreme Court, thus, stated the scope of Article 14:

“Article 14 strikes at arbitrariness in State action and ensures fairness and equality of treatment. It requires that State action must not be arbitrary but must be based on some rational and relevant principle which is non-discriminatory ….”

The Article is commonly used to challenge the award of contracts and licences by the government. The award of contract by the government for development of airports, road network, telecommunication licences, mines and mineral extraction licences have all been subject to constitutional challenge under Article 14. Article 19 is on the freedom of individuals. Article 19(1) thus declares the freedoms:

1. All citizens shall have the right—

  • to freedom of speech and expression;
  • to assemble peaceably and without arms;
  • to form associations or unions;
  • to move freely throughout the territory of India;
  • to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India;
  • to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business.

Article 19(1) vests all citizens with a variety of freedoms. Article 19(2) to 19(6) balance each of the above-mentioned individual freedoms with the interest of the society. For example, Article 19(6), thus curtails the freedom of trade, occupation and profession granted by Article 19(1)(g):

“6. Nothing in Sub-clause (g) of the said clause shall affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it imposes, or prevents the State from making any law imposing, in the interests of the general public, reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub-clause ….”

The unfettered freedom given in Article 19(1) can be curtailed in the interest of the public and social good. Thus, the freedoms are a fine balance between the individual rights and public interest. As is apparent from the range of freedoms, Article 19 finds wide use. To give an illustration, the Supreme Court has held that ‘commercial speech’, that is, the right to advertise, is covered by the freedom of speech. 3 The right is crucial for the media, television and entertainment and information technology industry. Similarly, the freedom to trade, occupation and profession is very widely used.

Article 21 reads: “21. No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.” ‘Life or personal liberty’ undoubtedly means body in a physical sense. The term has been interpreted by the courts in a much broader sense of everything which makes life worthy in the modern times. For example, right to privacy is an extension of the right to life. The three articles, 14, 19 and 21, individually and jointly, cover very wide aspects of our lives and businesses.

Article 12: ‘Other Authorities’

The chapter on the Fundamental Rights in the Constitution, thus, gives very substantive rights to the individuals. The rights, however, are available only against the ‘state’ as defined in article 12. Article 12 defines the state as follows:

“Article 12: In this part, unless the context otherwise requires, ‘the State’ includes the Government and the Parliament of India and the Government and 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 Union and State legislatures and executives are the governing mechanisms. Understandably, these are included in the definition of state. ‘Local authorities’ for long has referred to governing bodies like the municipalities, panchayats, city corporations and port trusts. The meaning of ‘other authorities’, however, is not obvious. The Supreme Court has developed it in the past 50 years.

The government did its work through its departments. In the decades after independence, the departments were unsuited for the newer challenges which required technical and managerial specialisation. Towards this, the government created corporations as statutory bodies or by incorporating them under the company law. Such bodies were separate legal entities from the government. The bodies also had certain amount of autonomy in their functioning. This was the very reason they were created. But this did not make them any less governmental. The Supreme Court, in Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India, 4 formulated that a body which is an instrumentality or agency of the government is ‘other authorities’ and thus, ‘state’ within the meaning of Article 12. The test for a judging whether a body was an instrumentality or agency included financial and managerial control of the body by the government.

The Supreme Court in Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi, 5 consolidated the instrumentality and agency principle. It ruled that societies registered under the Societies Registration Act, or for that matter, any form of organisation, would be ‘other authorities’, if these met the test of being instrumentalities or agencies of the state. By the early 1980s, the Supreme Court expanded the scope of ‘other authorities’. In the decades since, a large number of cases have come before the Supreme Court on the question of ‘other authorities’. Following liberalisation and globalisation of the economy through the 1990s, the business context changed. The Supreme Court has come to apply the principle of instrumentality and agency conservatively. M/s. Zee Tele Films Ltd. v. Union of India 6 is an important landmark where the Supreme Court ruled, but only by a majority judgement, that the Board of Cricket Control of India was not ‘other authorities.’ The Supreme Court has reiterated it in Cricket Association of Bihar v Board of Control for Cricket in India. 7

Notes

1. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597.

2. Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India, AIR 1979 SC 1628.

3. Tata Press Limited v. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited, AIR 1995 SC 2438.

4. Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India, AIR 1979 SC 1628.

5. Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi, AIR 1981 SC 487.

6. M/s. Zee Tele Films Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 2005 SC 2677.

7. Cricket Association of Bihar v. Board of Control for Cricket in India, AIR 2015 SC 3194.

This case was prepared for inclusion in Sage Business Cases primarily as a basis for classroom discussion or self-study, and is not meant to illustrate either effective or ineffective management styles. Nothing herein shall be deemed to be an endorsement of any kind. This case is for scholarly, educational, or personal use only within your university, and cannot be forwarded outside the university or used for other commercial purposes.

2024 Sage Publications, Inc. All Rights Reserved

locked icon

Sign in to access this content

Get a 30 day FREE TRIAL

  • Watch videos from a variety of sources bringing classroom topics to life
  • Read modern, diverse business cases
  • Explore hundreds of books and reference titles