Delhi HC Holds Agence France Press As Not A Public Authority As Per Article 12 Of The Constitution

The Delhi High Court, on July 27, held that a writ of mandamus could not be maintained against Agence France, as it was a private entity not based in India.

Bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad heard a Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) preferred under clause X of the Letters Patent Act 1865 read with Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code (CPC).

The plea was against an order of a single judge whereby writ filed by the appellant in the instant case had been dismissed.

Facts

Agence France (news agency) was a news organisation having its headquarters in France and its branch in New Delhi.

The appellant was appointed as chief photographer of India region. He claimed that he was being racially discriminated against by the news agency.

Henceforth, a writ petition was preferred by the appellant to restrain the news agency from racially discriminating him.

Contentions

It was contended on behalf of the news agency that as such the agency was not an authority as per the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. 

On behalf of the petitioner, it was argued the news agency was performing a public function and therefore was amenable to writ jurisdiction of the Court.

Decision

The Court considered a seven judge bench of the Apex Court in Pradeep Kumar Biswas vs. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology and others, (2002) 5 SCC 111 wherein the tests to determine as to whether an entity was an instrumentality or agency of the State were laid down.

The judgment broadly referred to the following tests to determine whether an entity was “state” within the meaning of Article 12: -

1.Entity should be created under a statute and should be functioning with  obligations and liability to the public.

2.The statute which created the entity should have vested that entity with power to make law or issue binding directions amounting to law within the meaning of Article 13(2) to govern its relationship with other people affairs of other people — their rights, duties, liabilities or other legal relations.

3.If created under a statute, then there must exist some other statute conferring on the entity such powers.

4.The entity must be subjected to limitations and obligations of the state.

Court held that none of the tests laid down under the above-mentioned judgment were satisfied in the instant case.

The Court observed that, “The writ of mandamus is not generally a remedy against private wrongs. The scope of writ of mandamus is against the private authority which might be performing a public duty limited to the enforcement of the public duty, and this Court cannot interfere with the internal management of a private body.”

The Court noted that it was well settled that a writ of mandamus lies only for the purpose of a public or statutory duty.

“Writs are issued for the performance of public duties. Though Article 226 of the Constitution of India is worded in such a way that a writ of mandamus could be issued even against a private authority but such private authority must be discharging a public function and the right sought to be enforced must be a public duty,” the Court observed.

With the above reasoning, it was held that Agence France Press, which was a foreign entity, was not amenable to the writ jurisdiction as there was an employer-employee relationship which by no jurisdiction can be termed as a public function. 

The Court noted that Agence France Press could not be termed as a State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India and was, therefore, not amenable to writ jurisdiction.

The LPA came to be dismissed.