The Supreme Court has held that the National Book Trust, India is an “other authority” under Article 12 of the Constitution and is therefore a “State” for that purpose. The Court found that the Government exercises financial, functional and administrative control over the Trust that is particular to it and pervasive. Upholding a 2012 Full Bench judgment of the Delhi High Court, the Court dismissed the Trust’s appeal.
A Bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Augustine George Masih said the only question before it was whether the Trust is a “State” within the meaning of Article 12.
Background
On a reference, a Full Bench of the Delhi High Court examined the Trust on the principles laid down in Ramana Dayaram Shetty, Ajay Hasia and, principally, Pradeep Kumar Biswas. By its judgment dated June 1, 2012, the Full Bench held that the Government exercised deep and pervasive control over the Trust. It concluded that the Trust was, in substance, an instrumentality or alter ego of the Government. The Chairman of the Trust challenged this before the Supreme Court.
The Court was assisted by Senior Advocate Sanjay Jain as Amicus Curiae, along with Advocate Harshita Sukhija.
Trust’s Arguments
The Trust argued that it is a society or trust and not a juristic person in the same way as a statutory corporation. It also argued that Government grants were only one of its sources of income, and that in certain years its own receipts formed a substantial part of its total income. On that basis, it said the High Court was not justified in treating the receipt of Government grants as conclusive.
Legal Form Not Decisive, Says Supreme Court
The Court rejected the argument based on the Trust’s legal form. Relying on Ajay Hasia, it said registration as a society does not by itself place a body beyond Article 12. The Bench observed, “The constitutional inquiry is therefore directed at the substance of the relationship between the body and the Government, and not at the nomenclature or legal form adopted for carrying on its activities.”
The Court noted that the Trust was created by Government of India resolutions dated June 15, 1957 and September 28, 1962. Under its Rules:
- The Government appoints the Chairman, who holds office at its pleasure.
- Representatives of the Ministries of Education, Finance and Information and Broadcasting sit on the governing body and the Executive Committee.
- The Executive Committee’s regulatory power is subject to the Government’s prior approval.
- The accounts are maintained in a form prescribed in consultation with the Comptroller and Auditor-General of India, which audits them.
The Bench remarked, “This is not merely a case where a Government officer happens to be associated with an otherwise independent organisation.”
On the financial argument, the Court held that financial autonomy in one respect cannot be isolated from the body’s composition, management and governmental supervision. It observed, “The fact that the Trust earns revenue from its publications therefore does not, by itself, displace the pervasive governmental control disclosed by its governing framework.”
The Court clarified that it was not treating book publication, by itself, as a sovereign function. Relying on Zee Telefilms, it noted that a public function in isolation is insufficient. However, the Bench said the Trust’s objects reflect the public and national purposes for which the Government established it, including publishing literature at moderate prices, translating works and disseminating knowledge.
Trust Employees Not Civil Servants
The Court addressed a concern the appellant had raised before the Full Bench and repeated before it. It clarified that declaring the Trust a “State” “does not convert the Trust into a department of the Government of India, nor does it make every employee of the Trust a civil servant”. The Bench explained that Article 12 has no automatic consequence under Articles 309, 310 or 311 of the Constitution.
Appeal Dismissed
The Court held that the Government’s role begins with the Trust’s creation and continues through its governance, executive and financial administration, audit and reporting. It said, “This is not the limited or general regulatory supervision which can be excluded from the ambit of Article 12 of the Constitution.”
Upholding the Full Bench’s conclusion, the Court dismissed the appeal. It also recorded its appreciation for the assistance of the Amicus Curiae.
Case Title: The Chairman, National Book Trust, India and Another v. A.R. Abdul Gaffar and Others
Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 14369 of 2015
Bench: Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Augustine George Masih
Date: 06.11.2026
