ANJANA VYAS Vs. NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In all above three writ petitions, the respondent National Law University, Jodhpur has raised a preliminary objection that the National Law University, Jodhpur is not "State" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) Learned counsel for the respondent submits that both statutory and non-statutory bodies can be considered as "State" provided they get financial resources from the government and have deep persuasive control of the Government with financial character, therefore, the National Law University, Jodhpur which is an autonomous body not receiving any financial aid from the Government cannot be said to be State as defined under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. In support of his arguments, the learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in (1989) 2 SCC 691 Andi Mutka Sadguru Shree Mukteajee Vandas Swami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust and Ors v. V.R. Rudani and Ors , (2007) 15 SCC 136 : Lieutenant Governor of Delhi v. V.K. Sodhi and Ors. and (2015) 4 SCC 670 : K.K. Saksena v. International Commission On Irrigation and Drainage and Ors.

(3.) Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that preliminary objection is not sustainable in law because the National Law University is established by law and for that purpose, State legislature promulgated an Act known as National Law University, Jodhpur Act of 1999 and respondent University was established under the said Act for the purpose of advancement of cause of learning, teaching and search and diffusion of knowledge in the field of law, as also to cater to the needs of the society by developing professional skills of persons intending to take up advocacy, judicial service law officers/managers and legislative drafting as their profession and matters incidental thereto, while inviting various provisions of the Act including the statute, in which there is provision for constitution of general council, executive council, academic council and finance committee, it is submitted that various authorities of the State Government are the members of each councils regulating the University, therefore, there is no strength in the preliminary objection raised by the respondent University. In support of his arugments, the learned counsel for the petitioner invited our attention towards the judgment in the case of AIR 2016 SC 73 : Dr. Janet Jeyapaul v. SRM University and Ors and submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while deciding the same issue has held that even deemed University is State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, therefore, the preliminary objection may kindly be rejected.