The Indian Association for the Cultivation of Science (IACS), according to the Supreme Court, qualifies as a "State" under Article 12 of the Indian Constitution. 

The Calcutta High Court had dismissed a writ case brought against IACS, but the bench of Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Hrishikesh Roy overturned that decision. 

Before the Supreme Court, the appellants emphasised that
1) the Government must first approve the majority of IACS members' appointments, and 
IACS receives more than 90% of the Government's financial support. 
(2) IACS receives significant funding from the Central Government via the Department of Science and Technology; 
3) IACS is completely under the control of the Government; 
4) IACS is a Deemed Research University with a primary mission to foster top-notch research in cutting-edge basic science disciplines. According to the argument made in Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology: the Government controls and dominates IACS on a financial, functional, and administrative level, making it "the State" as defined by Article 12 of the Indian Constitution. 

Accepting these arguments, the bench observed while admitting the appeal:

"We need not elaborate on the shortcomings in the views of the Division Bench of the High Court, whether in the earlier decision in Ashoke Kumar Roy (supra) or in the order impugned because, in our view, there is hardly any scope for reaching to any other conclusion but the one in favour of upholding the submission that IACS answers to the description of “the State” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, for it being financially, functionally and administratively under the control of the Government of India."

The academic staff of the IACS, the writ petitioners in this case, had brought up a number of concerns regarding their working circumstances. The High Court's Single Bench dismissed the writ petitions as unmaintainable after taking note of the Division Bench's ruling in Indian Association for the Cultivation of Science, Jadavpur & Ors. v. Ashoke Kumar Roy: (1992) 1 CLJ 319. The intra-court challenges brought against this order were denied by the High Court's Division Bench.

Case Title: Pushan Majumdar vs Union of India 
Citation: CA 369-378 OF 2023

Appearance of the advocates:-

For Petitioner(s) 
Mr. Prashant Bhushan, AOR
Ms. Alice Raj, Adv.
Ms. Suroor Mander, Adv.
Mr. Rahul Gupta, Adv.

For Respondent(s) 
Mr. Sanjay Jain, A.S.G.
Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR
Mr. Rupesh Kumar, Adv.
Mr. S.A. Haseeb, Adv.
Mr. Padmesh Mishra, Adv.
Mr. Arkaj Kumar, Adv.
Ms. Meena Devi, Adv.
Mr. Prasenjit Sarkar, Adv.
Mr. Piyush Beriwal, Adv.
Ms. Tanya Aggarwal, Adv.
Mr. Yatin Grover, Adv.
Mr. Kumarjit Das, Adv.
Mr. Parminder Singh Bhullar, AOR