The Gujarat High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by Himanshu Dineshchandra Parekh, an engineer who challenged the termination of his services by the Institute for Plasma Research (IPR). The division bench of Acting Chief Justice Biren Vaishnav and Justice Hemant M. Prachchhak upheld the earlier order of a Single Judge, stating that IPR is not a “State” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, and hence, a writ petition is not maintainable against it.

Read also: Gujarat High Court Seeks State's Clarification on Denial of Permission for Peaceful Protest Against Waqf Amendment and Uniform Civil Code

“The institute is purely an academic and research organization. It cannot be said that merely because it is under the Department of Atomic Energy, it becomes a State,” the court held.

The appellant argued that IPR functions under the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) and is financially and administratively controlled by it. He cited its bye-laws, funding structure, and employee policies to claim that the institute meets the criteria of a ‘State’, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology (2002).

Read also: Child Custody Orders Are Temporary, Can't Be Misused for Legal Battles: Gujarat HC

However, the court noted clear distinctions. In the Pradeep Kumar Biswas case, the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) was declared a State due to deep government involvement, including 70% funding, Prime Minister as ex-officio President, and audit by the Comptroller and Auditor General.

In contrast, the court observed that:

“The extent of government control over IPR is merely regulatory, not pervasive. There is no evidence of the extent of Central Government funding or deep involvement in day-to-day affairs.”

Read also: Gujarat High Court Grants Bail to Man Accused of Murdering His Son: Court Calls It ‘Sheer Frustration, Not Criminal Mindset’

The court clarified that even though IPR receives support from the DAE, its governing council and administrative policies are not enough to treat it as a State. Moreover, no notification exists under Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act declaring IPR a government-controlled society.

“Theoretical and experimental studies in plasma physics cannot be considered fundamental to governance,” the court added.

Ultimately, the court found no error in the decision of the Single Judge and concluded that IPR functions as an autonomous research body and not as a State authority. The appeal and related civil application were dismissed accordingly.

Case title: HIMANSHU DINESHCHANDRA PAREKH v/s INSTITUTE FOR PLASMA RESEARCH & ORS.