Ravi Khokhar & Ors v. Union of India & Ors, 2026
The Supreme Court reaffirmed the principle that the term “State” under Article 12 must be interpreted functionally, not just based on formal ownership or origin.
Judgement Details
Court
Supreme Court of India
Date of Decision
16 March 2026
Judges
Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi
Citation
Acts / Provisions
Section 13(1)(ia), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Section 25, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Facts of the Case
-
The controversy arose from a pay revision dispute in the Air Force Group Insurance Society (AFGIS).
-
In December 2016, the Board of Trustees of AFGIS initially resolved to revise employees’ pay scales in accordance with the Sixth Central Pay Commission.
-
However, in a subsequent meeting held on February 13, 2017, the Board reversed its earlier decision and resolved to delink the Society’s pay structure from the Central Government pay scales.
-
The employees were asked to accept revised service conditions through a notice issued on May 22, 2017.
-
Challenging the decision, the employees filed writ petitions before the Delhi High Court under Article 226, contending that AFGIS’s decision violated their statutory and contractual rights.
-
The High Court dismissed the petitions, holding that AFGIS was a self-contained welfare and insurance society funded by member contributions and therefore did not qualify as “State” under Article 12. As a result, the Court ruled that the writ petitions were not maintainable.
-
The employees then appealed to the Supreme Court.
Issues
-
Whether the Air Force Group Insurance Society (AFGIS) qualifies as a “State” under Article 12 of the Constitution?
-
Whether employees of AFGIS can invoke writ jurisdiction under Article 226 against decisions of the Society?
-
What criteria or tests determine whether a body, though privately constituted, performs a public function closely linked to the State?
Held
-
AFGIS is a “State” under Article 12 of the Constitution of India.
-
Employees of AFGIS are entitled to approach the High Court under Article 226 for enforcement of their rights.
-
The test for determining whether a body is a “State” involves examining:
-
The nature of functions performed.
-
The character of activities and their public relevance.
-
The degree of government control over administration and finances.
-
-
Even a body that appears private or self-contained can be treated as a State if administrative, financial, and functional dominance by the government is established.
Analysis
-
The Supreme Court reaffirmed the principle that the term “State” under Article 12 must be interpreted functionally, not just based on formal ownership or origin.
-
The judgment strengthens the scope of writ jurisdiction by allowing employees of bodies performing public functions linked to the State to seek legal remedies.
-
Emphasizes that the public function test, along with administrative and financial control, is critical in assessing State status.
-
Ensures that armed forces personnel welfare schemes, though seemingly self-contained, remain subject to accountability under the Constitution.
-
Promotes rule of law and oversight over quasi-governmental bodies impacting a defined public class.