Grant-in-Aid – ICSSR's Rules of Grant-in-Aid to Societies and Institutions Doing Research in the field of Social Sciences – Complaints received by ICSSR against CRRID alleging malpractices in its functioning including violation of rules and regulations, misuse of resoures including the grants paid by ICSSR – ICSSR constituted committees to enquire into allegations – Anomalies in the working of CRRID were highlighted, corrective measures recommended – CRRID failed to rectify deficiencies despite ample opportunities – ICSSR stopped releasing the grant – High Court directed ICSSR to release the grant holding that it has the ultimate responsibility of releasing the grant for the salaries of the employees of CRRID – Interference with:
Held: The grant was withheld for just and valid reasons – The grant-in-aid is a discretion of ICSSR – The grant-in-aid provided by ICSSR comes with certain conditions required to be followed by the beneficiary institution – Thus, beneficiary institutions like CRRID cannot claim grants as a matter of right – There was a clear finding of various committees that CRRID defaulted and violated the mandate and the directions under which it had to work to receive the aid without any interruption – Further, there is no employer-employee or master-servant relationship between the respondents-employees of CRRID and ICSSR – ICSSR is not liable for providing salaries of these employees as it is the responsibility of CRRID to pay them salaries irrespective of whether it gets a grant from ICSSR or not – Order of Single Judge and the impugned order set aside – CRRID to ensure payment of withheld salaries to all its employees – In case, it fails to release this amount, ICSSR to withhold all further grant-in-aid in favour of CRRID. [Paras 18-20, 23, 24, 28]
Constitution of India – Art.12 – Control of ICSSR over CRRID – Nature – High Court held that ICSSR has ‘deep and pervasive’ control over CRRID as it has its nominee in Governing Body of CRRID – Correctness:
Held: Findings of the High Court are misplaced – The presence of one or even two members of ICSSR in a Governing Body of twelve does not amount to ‘deep and pervasive’ control of the State – As of today there are only three nominees together from ICSSR and State of Punjab in all – This is not 'deep and pervasive' control – Further, ICSSR is indeed an “authority”, within the purview of Art.12 of the Constitution of India – It controls CRRID to an extent inasmuch as CRRID depends on the funds released by ICSSR as grants – But this itself cannot be called a ‘deep and pervasive’ control – A ‘deep and pervasive’ control would require much more than just financing an institution or a body – There is a very loose control over the large affairs of the CRRID, which would include both financial and administrative – The financial control by both ICSSR and the State of Punjab is limited only to their grant-inaid – ICSSR does not have any power to interfere with the day to day functions of CRRID – The ‘deep and pervasive’ control requires administrative, financial and functional control of such a body to a much higher degree including interference into its dayto-day working – Mere regulatory control cannot mean ‘deep and pervasive’ control – Rules and Regulations of CRRID – Societies Registration Act, 1860. [Paras 16, 17, 21]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.