On 6 November 2026 the Supreme Court held that the National Book Trust, India (NBT) is an “other authority”, and therefore “State”, under Article 12 of the Constitution. It does not matter that NBT is registered as a society and earns its own money from selling books. The Government’s control over it is deep and pervasive, and that brings it within Article 12. The Court dismissed NBT’s appeal against a 2012 Full Bench judgment of the Delhi High Court.
Read the judgment (PDF) · Full text on Indian Kanoon
Case at a glance
- Case: The Chairman, National Book Trust, India & Anr. v. A.R. Abdul Gaffar & Ors.
- Citation: 2026 INSC 1202 (Reportable)
- Appeal: Civil Appeal No. 14369 of 2015
- Bench: Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra (author) and Justice Augustine George Masih
- Decided: 6 November 2026
- Amicus curiae: Shri Sanjay Jain, Senior Advocate
- Under appeal: Full Bench judgment of the Delhi High Court dated 1 June 2012
- Result: Appeal dismissed; NBT is “State” under Article 12
The question
NBT was set up by Government resolutions of 15 June 1957 and 28 September 1962 and is registered as a society. Can such a body be an instrumentality or agency of the Government, and so “State” under Article 12, against which fundamental rights can be enforced by writ?
NBT’s argument
NBT argued that a society is not a juristic body like a statutory corporation. It also argued that government grants were only one of its sources of income, since it earns from the sale of its publications.
The test the Court applied
The Court followed Ramana Dayaram Shetty (1979), Ajay Hasia (1981) and the seven-judge bench in Pradeep Kumar Biswas (2002). The question is whether the body is financially, functionally and administratively dominated by or under the control of the Government. The test is applied cumulatively, and the control must be particular to the body and pervasive. Merely regulatory control, which the Government exercises over many private bodies, is not enough.
Why NBT is “State”: the control the Court found
- Created by the Government. NBT exists because of two Government resolutions.
- Chairman holds office at the Government’s pleasure. The Government appoints him and can remove him.
- Ministries on the boards. Representatives of the Ministries of Education, Finance and Information & Broadcasting sit on the governing body, and the Government nominates other members.
- Executive Committee and rule-making. Ministry representatives sit on the Executive Committee, the Finance representative acts as Financial Adviser, and its regulations need Government approval.
- Finances. Financial matters go through the Financial Adviser, and disagreements go to the Ministers.
- Accounts and audit. Annual reports and accounts go to the Government, follow a Government-prescribed form, and are audited by the CAG.
- No change without approval. Specified changes to NBT’s rules and objects need Government approval.
Taken together, these provisions are far more than ordinary regulatory supervision (paras 15 and 25).
Four points to note
- Form does not decide it. Registration as a society does not by itself take a body outside Article 12 (para 10).
- Own income does not decide it. Government funding is important but not the only factor. Earnings from book sales do not answer the question in NBT’s favour (para 16).
- Public function alone is not enough. An educational or public function on its own would not make a body “State”. It has to be read with the degree of Government control (para 18).
- “State” is not a Government department. The ruling is for Part III, fundamental rights. NBT does not become a Government department, and its employees do not become civil servants entitled to the protection of Articles 309 to 311 (para 22).
Why it matters
Many bodies set up by Government resolution and registered as societies argue that they are outside writ jurisdiction because of their form or their own income. This judgment confirms that courts will look at the substance of Government control, not the label. For employees and others dealing with such bodies, it means Articles 14 and 16 can be enforced against them through a writ under Article 32 or 226.