Supreme Court Declares National Book Trust 'State', Rejects Society Status Plea
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on 6 November 2026 held that the National Book Trust, India is an 'other authority' and therefore 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. It rejected the Trust's argument that being a society or trust, and earning part of its income from book sales, keeps it outside Article 12. A Bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Augustine George Masih dismissed the appeal in The Chairman, National Book Trust, India and Another v. A.R. Abdul Gaffar and Others, reported as 2026 INSC 1202, and upheld the Full Bench of the Delhi High Court dated 1 June 2012.
The Court added a clear limit. Being 'State' under Article 12 does not make the Trust a department of the Government of India, and does not make its employees civil servants. The judgment is marked reportable.
Case at a Glance
Case: The Chairman, National Book Trust, India and Another v. A.R. Abdul Gaffar and Others
Citation: 2026 INSC 1202 (Reportable)
Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 14369 of 2015
Bench: Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra (author) and Justice Augustine George Masih
Date of Judgment: 6 November 2026
What Was Challenged: Judgment dated 1 June 2012 of the Full Bench of the High Court of Delhi holding the Trust to be 'State' under Article 12
Outcome: Appeal dismissed, Full Bench conclusion upheld
The Question Behind the Headline
The Court framed the case as a single question: is the National Book Trust a 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution? The answer matters because a body that is 'State' must respect the fundamental rights in Part III, including equality under Article 14 and the discipline of Article 21. The Trust argued that it is only a society and trust and cannot be treated like a statutory corporation.
Background of the Dispute
The Full Bench of the Delhi High Court
In answering a reference, the Full Bench of the High Court of Delhi examined the Trust on the principles of Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India, Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi and, principally, Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology. It asked whether the body is financially, functionally and administratively dominated by, or under the control of, the Government, and whether the control is pervasive.
What the Full Bench Found
The Trust was brought into existence by Government resolutions dated 15 June 1957 and 28 September 1962, and its Rules show substantial governmental involvement in its constitution, composition, administration and finances.
The Chairman is appointed by the Government and holds office at its pleasure, and the Trust and its Executive Committee include Government nominees, including representatives of the concerned Ministries.
Its objects are the production, publication and dissemination of literature and knowledge at moderate prices, including publication and translation of Indian and foreign works.
By its judgment dated 1 June 2012, the Full Bench concluded that the Government exercises deep and pervasive control, that the Trust is in substance an instrumentality or alter ego of the Government, and that it falls within 'other authorities' in Article 12.
Arguments Before the Supreme Court
The Court heard counsel for the parties and Shri Sanjay Jain, learned senior counsel, as Amicus Curiae, assisted by Ms. Harshita Sukhija, learned counsel.
The Trust's Case
The Trust argued that it is a society or trust and not a juristic person in the same way as a statutory corporation. It said Government grants are only one source of its income, and that for some years its own receipts from sales were a substantial part of its total income, so the High Court was wrong to treat Government grants as conclusive. It also raised the concern that declaring it 'State' would convert it into a department of the Government and make its employees civil servants.
The Amicus Curiae's Approach
The Amicus did not ask whether Government funding was the entire income of the Trust. He examined the financial, functional and administrative relationship between the Trust and the Government cumulatively, and drew the Court's attention to decisions where societies were brought within Article 12 and others where they were not.
The Supreme Court's Analysis
The Law on Article 12
The Bench recalled that 'State' in Article 12 is an inclusive definition that extends to 'all local or other authorities', worded widely so that constitutional obligations cannot be avoided by moving public functions into a separate legal form. It reproduced the tests in Ajay Hasia and the clarification in Pradeep Kumar Biswas that the tests are not a rigid checklist, and that purely regulatory control does not make a body 'State'.
Form of the Body Does Not Decide the Question
The Court rejected the argument that registration as a society takes the Trust outside Article 12. It cited Ajay Hasia, which says:
The inquiry has to be not as to how the juristic person is born but why it has been brought into existence.
The Government's Role in the Trust's Creation and Governance
The Bench held that the Trust's creation was attributable to the Government, through the resolutions of 1957 and 1962, and was not the result of private initiative later regulated. Under the Rules, the Government appoints the Chairman, who holds office at its pleasure and is the chief executive officer. Representatives of the Ministries of Education, Finance, and Information and Broadcasting sit in the governing body and the Executive Committee, and the Finance Ministry representative also serves as Financial Adviser. The Executive Committee's rule-making power needs the prior approval of the Government of India.
Finance, Audit and Control Over the Rules
Financial matters go to the Financial Adviser and, in specified cases of disagreement, to the Ministers of Education and Finance. The annual report and audited accounts are submitted to the Government, the accounts are kept in a form prescribed in consultation with the Comptroller and Auditor General of India, who can audit them like Government accounts, and some changes to the rules and purposes of the Trust need Government approval. The Court held these features operate cumulatively and are not isolated instances of ordinary regulatory supervision.
Income From Book Sales Does Not Change the Result
The Court accepted that financial assistance is important but not exclusive. It held that earning revenue from publications does not answer the constitutional question, because financial autonomy in one aspect cannot be isolated from the structure of composition, management and Government supervision. The Amicus had rightly looked at the Government's involvement as structurally embedded.
The Role of the Trust's Functions
The Court did not hold that publishing books is a sovereign function, or that every educational or public-utility activity makes a body 'State'. Relying on Zee Telefilms Ltd. v. Union of India, it said a public function alone is not enough. The Trust's functions mattered because of their character together with its creation and control: producing good literature at moderate prices, publishing classical Indian literature, translating important works, and holding book exhibitions and seminars reflect national purposes for which the Government set it up. Later programmes, including the Prime Minister's Scheme for Mentoring Young Authors, were treated only as corroboration.
A Society Is Not Automatically 'State'
Reviewing decisions where societies were and were not held to be 'State', the Court drew this lesson:
A society is not automatically 'State' merely because it is associated with the Government; the Court must examine how it is constituted and how far the Government controls its functioning.
What Article 12 Status Does Not Mean
The Court clarified that the declaration does not convert the Trust into a department of the Government of India, does not make its employees civil servants, and does not give them the protections of Part XIV of the Constitution. Article 12 serves a distinct function for Part III and has no automatic consequence under Articles 309, 310 or 311.
Operative Directions
The National Book Trust, India is an 'other authority' under Article 12 and is therefore 'State' for that purpose.
The Trust is financially, functionally and administratively dominated by the Government, and the control is particular to it and pervasive.
The Full Bench judgment of the Delhi High Court dated 1 June 2012 is upheld and no interference is called for.
The appeal is dismissed.
The Court recorded its appreciation for the assistance of Shri Sanjay Jain as Amicus Curiae.
Why This Judgment Matters
The ruling reaffirms that the question under Article 12 is substance and not label. A body set up by a Government resolution, governed by Government nominees, audited like a Government account and answerable to Ministries cannot avoid fundamental rights by calling itself a society or trust. It also confirms that part of an organisation's income from the market does not shield it.
The Court has also set a boundary that will matter in service disputes. Article 12 status brings the body within Part III but does not bring its staff within Articles 309 to 311. Lawyers advising societies, trusts and similar bodies should now map their creation, composition, finances and control against the cumulative test, and lawyers challenging their actions can plead Article 12 status with a clearer authority to rely on.
Learn Writ Petition Drafting With Into Legal World
Whether a body is 'State' is often the first hurdle in a writ petition under Article 226. If you want to plead maintainability, facts of control and constitutional grounds with precision, learn it step by step in the Advanced Legal Drafting Certificate Course by Into Legal World.
Upgrade Your Legal Career With the Advanced Legal Drafting Certificate Course
Strong drafting wins cases. Master petitions, replies, applications and appeals with practical, court-ready training. Enrol in the Advanced Legal Drafting Certificate Course Today
Get Daily Judgment Updates
Join the Into Legal World WhatsApp channel for daily Supreme Court and High Court judgment updates: Join the WhatsApp Channel
Frequently Asked Questions
Is the National Book Trust a 'State' Under Article 12?
Yes. The Supreme Court upheld the Delhi High Court Full Bench and held that the Trust is an 'other authority' and therefore 'State' under Article 12.
Does Registration as a Society Keep a Body Outside Article 12?
No. Relying on Ajay Hasia, the Court held that the form of the body is not decisive, and the inquiry is into the substance of its relationship with the Government.
Does Earning Income From Sales Take the Trust Outside Article 12?
No. The Court held that revenue from publications does not displace pervasive governmental control shown by the Trust's governing framework.
Are the Trust's Employees Now Civil Servants?
No. The Court clarified that Article 12 status does not make the Trust a Government department, and has no automatic consequence under Articles 309, 310 or 311.
Is the Judgment Reportable?
Yes. The judgment in The Chairman, National Book Trust, India v. A.R. Abdul Gaffar, 2026 INSC 1202, is marked reportable.
Keywords
National Book Trust Article 12, 2026 INSC 1202, State under Article 12, other authorities, Ajay Hasia test, Pradeep Kumar Biswas, instrumentality of the State, society and Article 12, Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, Justice Augustine George Masih, Supreme Court judgment 6 November 2026
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
Citation: 2026 INSC 1202
Bench: Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Augustine George Masih
Comments