On a somewhat tense Thursday afternoon inside Court at the Gujarat High Court, a rare Larger Bench assembled to decide a constitutional question that had been hanging for months: Is the Institute for Plasma Research (IPR) a “State” under Article 12?
After nearly an hour of discussion filled with quick references to precedent and occasional pauses as the judges flipped through bulky files the Bench of Justice A.S. Supehia, Justice Aniruddha P. Mayee, and Justice Pranav Trivedi finally pronounced its decision. And it was a significant shift from an earlier division bench view.
Background
The litigation stems from an appeal filed by Dr. Indranil Bandyopadhyay, a Scientific Officer at IPR, who had challenged a recovery of salary arrears. His counsel, Senior Advocate Asim Pandya, argued that the case could not be brushed aside merely because IPR claimed it was not a “State.”
The controversy deepened because an earlier 2025 ruling in Himanshu Dineshchandra Parekh v. IPR had held that the institute was not a State under Article 12. That ruling leaned heavily on the Supreme Court’s Pradeep Kumar Biswas judgment on CSIR.
But as the courtroom observed yesterday, the Larger Bench did not seem entirely convinced that the earlier decision captured the full legal landscape.
Court’s Observations
The Bench quietly but firmly dismantled the assumptions of the earlier ruling. It began by listing factual elements that, in its view, were not disputed at all.
IPR is 100% funded by the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE). Its by-laws require mandatory Central Government approval, and almost the entire Governing Council consists of DAE representatives. Even service conditions from pay structures to reservations mirror Central Government norms.
At one point, Justice Supehia remarked,
“When the Government’s presence is so pervasive, the veil cannot remain thick. Eventually one has to see who actually holds the strings.”
Senior Advocate Pandya highlighted a crucial 1996 Gazette Resolution transferring administrative control of IPR from the Department of Science & Technology to the DAE. The Bench took clear note of this.
“The bench observed, ‘Once the administrative takeover by the DAE is established, it’s difficult to argue that the institute functions independently of the State.’”
The judges also considered the Atomic Energy Act, particularly Section 20, which ties inventions and patents created at IPR to Central Government oversight. This, the Bench felt, reflected not merely financial assistance but deep structural control.
Meanwhile, counsel for IPR argued that funding alone was insufficient and that several Supreme Court decisions had refused to equate government grants with constitutional control. But the Bench was not persuaded, especially after comparing IPR’s legal architecture with what the Supreme Court assessed in the CSIR case.
Another telling moment came when Justice Mayee casually commented, “If eight of ten governing members belong to the Government, it’s not just influence it’s stewardship.”
Read also:- Supreme Court Overrules Earlier Verdict, Says Public Premises Act Prevails Over All State Rent Laws in Old Tenancies Too
Decision
After examining case law, by-laws, government resolutions, and constitutional principles, the Larger Bench reached a decisive conclusion:
The Institute for Plasma Research is a “State” under Article 12 of the Constitution.
In a clear departure from the earlier view, the Bench held that IPR’s creation, funding pattern, administrative control, and statutory responsibilities collectively form a “deep and pervasive” presence of the Government.
The judges declared that the previous ruling in Himanshu Dineshchandra Parekh “stands annulled,” and the reference was answered accordingly, paving the way for the original appeal to be heard by the appropriate roster Bench.
And with that, the court rose closing a debate that had, for months, left thousands of scientists and administrators in quiet uncertainty.
Case Title:- Dr. Indranil Bandyopadhyay vs. Institute for Plasma Research & Others
