Any organisation, when controlled by the government, cannot transact like a private person while dealing with others. It has to comply with the constitutional obligation of acting fairly and reasonably in its actions having impact on ordinary citizens or other bodies. The question often arises, however, as to what degree of governmental control would subject an institution to constitutional obligation. In the case of G. M. Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd vs Satrughan Nishad, the Supreme Court held that mere holding of 50 per cent stake in the company by the government of UP did not establish deep and pervasive control of the stake in the organisation, and a writ petition could not be filed against the concerned sugar mill so as to enforce its constitutional obligations.

If a post of the principal in a women’s college is kept reserved for a woman, the same would not constitute infringement of the right to equality, which is contained in Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In the case of Vijay Lakshmi vs Punjab University & Ors, the Supreme Court has overruled the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which had struck down such a rule of reservation framed by the state government of Punjab. The Supreme Court observed that the courts ought not to interfere with the policy decisions taken by the state government in this respect, and in any event, special provisions for women could be made under Article 15 (3) of the Constitution.

The music industry is facing a fresh challenge on the Internet, in trying to prevent peer to peer sharing of music. Having succeeded against Napster on the ground of copyright infringement, the industry has sued three other companies in the US for providing software that enables file-sharing on a peer to peer basis, that requires no intervention from the three corporations providing such software. These companies have been charged with “contributing infringement” of the copyright in music held by various companies.

SOLON