Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.33 seconds)
T. Rajan vs State And Ors. on 25 January, 1994 cites

Tekraj Vasandi Alias K.L. Basandhi vs Union Of India & Others on 10 December, 1987

8. As in the case of Tekraj Vasandi alias K.L. Basandhi v. Union of India and Ors. (supra) in this case too the Museum is a registered society. Applying the tests laid down in the judicial decisions cited above, the question is whether the museum has undertaken governmental business or any obligation which the State is expected to fulfil. The modern State cannot isolate itself from the activities which educate its people. By reason of its welfare character, the State is expected to promote scientific education through various agencies which, though guided and supported by the State, may not be instrumentalities of the State. Scientific literacy, promotion of scientific approach and dissemination of scientific knowledge are not primary functions of the State. The State has entered the field of dissemination of scientific knowledge because it is concerned with the progress of its people. This does not mean that every unit, body, society or agency which is substantially aided by government's funds and personnel, constitutes "State" or other "authority" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India or an "authority" within the meaning of Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The nature of the objects of the museum distinguishes it as an institution of promotion of scientific literacy. The element of Governmental function is absent in the objects. The business is carried on by the Board of Governors and is not governed by regulations made by the Government These realities must govern the application of the principle of pervasive presence of the Government. These realities of the governance of the Museum ake the activities of the museum out of the test of "public obligation of the Government." Besides, experience shows that the societies which promote arts, science and cultural, though subject to the support and guidance of the Government, fulfil their objects independently of the governmental control. It is not right to identify every such society, as State or instrumentality of State or authority. The State no doubt helps in the promotion of the objects. But the objects of the museum are not a public obligation of the State but are matters of State's concern for the welfare of its people. Upon consideration of the totality of the objects, and the nature of the Government's interest in the museum, I hold that the museum is not "State" or "other authority" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. For the same reason it is not an "authority" within the meaning of Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Supreme Court of India Cites 23 - Cited by 144 - M Rangnath - Full Document
1