New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday said the disinvestment of the government company and its devolution into a private company would make it immune from being subjected to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, even if the litigant had entered the portals of the court while the employer was the government.
Article 226 is a constitutional right that empowers a high court to issue writs including habeas corpus, mandamus, certiorari, prohibition and quo warranto for the enforcement of the fundamental rights of the citizens and for any other purpose.
A bench of Justices B R Gavai and Sandeep Mehta said Air India Limited after being taken over by a private corporate entity could not be treated as state anymore, and it would not be amenable to writ jurisdiction. The apex court made these observations while junking a plea by cabin crew members claiming stagnation in pay and non-promotion of employees. On October 8, 2021,Air India, created as a statutory body, was taken over by Talace India Pvt Ltd after buying 100% equity shares of the government of India.
Senior advocate A M Singhvi, representing Air India Limited, said that the Bombay High Court allowed the appellants’ to move the appropriate forum.
“It is thus, seen that various High Courts across the country have taken a consistent view over a period of time on the pertinent question presented for consideration that the subsequent event i.e. the disinvestment of the government company and its devolution into a private company would make the company immune from being subjected to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, even if the litigant had entered the portals of the court while the employer was the government”, said Justice Mehta, who authored the judgment on behalf of the bench.
Justice Mehta said Air India Ltd (AIL), the erstwhile government run airline having been taken over by the private company Talace India Pvt Ltd, unquestionably, is not performing any public duty, therefore no writ petition is maintainable against AIL. “Once the respondent No.3(AIL) ceased to be covered by the definition of State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, it could not have been subjected to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India”, said the bench.
The appellants’ R S Madireddy moved the Bombay High Court, which rejected their plea, claiming violation of fundamental rights under Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution as there was no effective appraisal in pay and promotion of the employees. “We do not find any reason to take a different view from the one taken by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in sustaining the preliminary objection qua maintainability of the writ petitions preferred by the appellants and rejecting the same as being not maintainable. With the above observations, the appeals are dismissed. ”, said the apex court.
The petitioners’ counsel submitted that the “right to seek remedy stands crystallised on the date of institution of proceedings and though subsequent events can be considered, it is a well settled tenet of law that such subsequent events can be looked at only to advance equity rather than to defeat it”.
The apex court said AIL after its disinvestment ceased to be a state or its instrumentality within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution.
Read More:
