National Book Trust Is State Under Article 12: SC

National Book Trust Is ‘State’ Under Article 12: Supreme Court Upholds Delhi High Court Full Bench

The Chairman, National Book Trust, India & Anr. v. A.R. Abdul Gaffar & Ors. 2026 INSC 1202 Decided 6 November 2026

Published: 6 November 2026 · NyayVidhan · 3 min read

In The Chairman, National Book Trust, India v. A.R. Abdul Gaffar (2026 INSC 1202), the Supreme Court held that the National Book Trust is an ‘other authority’ and so ‘State’ under Article 12 of the Constitution, upholding a Full Bench of the Delhi High Court (para 26). The Trust is financially, functionally and administratively dominated by the Government, with control particular to it and pervasive; its registration as a society and its own income do not displace that (para 25).

Key holdings

The National Book Trust is an ‘other authority’ and so ‘State’ under Article 12 (para 26).

Registration as a society does not by itself place a body beyond Article 12 (para 10).

The Government's role in the Trust's creation, governance, finances and audit is pervasive, not merely regulatory (paras 15, 24).

Income from its own publications does not displace that control (paras 16-17, 25).

Being ‘State’ does not make the Trust a Government department or its employees civil servants; Article 12 has no automatic consequence under Articles 309, 310 or 311 (para 22).

Judgment digest by NyayVidhan: a summary of the court's judgment, not its text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.

Brief Facts

The Trust was set up under Government of India resolutions of 15.06.1957 and 28.09.1962 (para 11). Answering a reference, a Full Bench of the Delhi High Court examined it on the principles of Ramana Dayaram Shetty, Ajay Hasia and, principally, Pradeep Kumar Biswas, asking cumulatively whether it was financially, functionally and administratively dominated by or under the control of the Government (para 2). On 01.06.2012 the Full Bench held that the Government exercised deep and pervasive control, that the Trust was in substance an instrumentality or alter ego of the Government, and that it fell within ‘other authorities’ in Article 12 (para 4). The Trust's Chairman and another appealed; the Court heard an Amicus Curiae (para 5).

Court's Findings

Article 12 was cast in wide terms so that constitutional obligations cannot be avoided by transferring public functions to a separate legal form (para 6). Under Ajay Hasia, even a registered society can be an instrumentality of Government; the form of incorporation is not decisive (paras 7, 10). Pradeep Kumar Biswas asks whether the Government's financial, functional and administrative control is particular to the body and pervasive, not merely regulatory (para 8). The Trust was created by Government resolutions to pursue a national objective (para 11). The Government appoints its Chairman, who holds office at its pleasure, and Ministry representatives sit on its governing body and Executive Committee (paras 12-13). Its finances run through a Finance Ministry Financial Adviser, Government-prescribed accounts and audit by the Comptroller and Auditor-General, and Government approval is needed to alter its rules (para 14). Taken together, this is not ordinary regulatory supervision (paras 15, 24). Revenue from its publications does not displace that control (paras 16-17). Publishing books is not by itself a governmental function, but the Trust's objects reflect the public purposes for which the Government set it up (paras 18-19).

Legal Principle

Applying Pradeep Kumar Biswas, a body is ‘State’ under Article 12 when, on the cumulative facts, the Government's financial, functional and administrative control over it is particular to it and pervasive; merely regulatory control is not enough (para 8). Registration as a society, or earning part of its income independently, does not displace such control (para 25).

NyayVidhan's view · Practice note

Why It Matters

The ruling rests on the Trust's own Rules and record: creation by Government resolution, a Chairman who holds office at the Government's pleasure, Ministry representatives in its governing bodies, and audit by the Comptroller and Auditor-General (paras 11-14). A body registered as a society cannot rely on its legal form or on earning part of its income; the question is the cumulative degree of control (paras 10, 16, 24). The Court also limited the consequence: being ‘State’ attracts the discipline of Part III, but does not make every employee a civil servant or bring the protections of Articles 309, 310 or 311 automatically (paras 22-23).

Editorial comment by the NyayVidhan Editorial Desk. It is not part of the Court's judgment and is not legal advice.

Precedents Relied Upon

Pradeep Kumar Biswas vs. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology and Others (2002) 5 SCC 111
Applied Discussed at ¶ 2, 8, 16, 22
A seven-Judge Bench explained that the Ajay Hasia tests are not a rigid checklist: the question is whether, on the cumulative facts, the body is financially, functionally and administratively dominated by or under the control of the Government, with control particular to it and pervasive; merely regulatory control does not make it State. The Full Bench principally relied on it, and the Court applied the test to hold the Trust State.
Ajay Hasia and Others vs. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi and Others (1981) 1 SCC 722
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 2, 6, 7, 8, 10, 22
A five-Judge Bench held that even a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 can be an instrumentality or agency of Government; the test is why the body was brought into existence, not how it was born. Relied on to reject the Trust's plea that, as a society, it is outside Article 12.
Ramana Dayaram Shetty vs. International Airport Authority of India and Others (1979) 3 SCC 489
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 2, 6, 7
A three-Judge Bench decision from which Ajay Hasia culled its indicative tests of an instrumentality or agency of Government; among the principles the Full Bench applied.

View all precedents (6)

Rajasthan State Electricity Board, Jaipur vs. Mohan Lal and Others 1967 SCC OnLine SC 18
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 6
One of the decisions that progressively recognised that the constitutional conception of State cannot be confined to bodies that are formally departments of Government or created by statute.
Sukhdev Singh and Others vs. Bhagatram Sardar Singh Raghuvanshi and Another (1975) 1 SCC 421
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 6
One of the decisions that progressively recognised that the constitutional conception of State cannot be confined to bodies that are formally departments of Government or created by statute.
Zee Telefilms Ltd. and Another vs. Union of India and Others (2005) 4 SCC 649
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 18
The existence of a public function, in isolation, is insufficient; the test under Article 12 must be satisfied cumulatively. Relied on to say that publishing books is not by itself a governmental function.