Holding

The Supreme Court held that the language of pre‑medical and pre‑dental examinations is a policy matter not amounting to a direct violation of Article 29(2), and therefore cannot be enforced under Article 32.

Summary

The petitioners, a language advocacy society and several students, filed a writ under Article 32 seeking a direction that pre‑medical and pre‑dental entrance examinations be conducted in Hindi and other regional languages, alleging that the exclusive use of English violated Article 29(2) of the Constitution. The respondents, the Union of India, CBSE and the Medical Council of India, opposed the claim. The Court examined whether the lack of examinations in Hindi constituted a denial of admission on language grounds and whether such a policy matter could be enforced through Article 32. It held that the decision on the language of examination is a policy issue, not a direct infringement of a fundamental right, and that Article 32 cannot be used to dictate policy preferences. Consequently, the petition was dismissed as withdrawn, with the Court noting that the petitioners could pursue other legal avenues if appropriate.

Issues considered

Whether the non‑conduct of pre‑medical and pre‑dental examinations in Hindi or regional languages amounts to denial of admission on the ground of language in violation of Article 29(2).
Whether the Supreme Court can entertain a writ under Article 32 to direct the government to conduct such examinations in Hindi or regional languages.
Whether the matter is a question of policy rather than a direct infringement of a fundamental right.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 29(1), s. Article 29(2), s. Article 32

Subjects

Article 32Article 29language rightseducation policypre‑medical examinationfundamental rightswrit petitionpolicy decision

Judgment

HINDI_HITRAKSHAK SAMIT! AND ORS.
A
v.
y
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

FEBRUARY 26, 1990

B [SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, CJ, K.N. SAIKIA AND
M.M. PUNCHHI, JJ.]

Constitution of India, 1950: Articles 29(2) and 32-Non-holding
of pre-medical and pre-dental examinations in Hindi or other regional
languages-Whether amounts to denial of admission on grounds of
q language-Whether violative of Fundamental Rights-Writ for direc-
tion to conduct examination in particular language-Whether appro-
priate remedy.

A'Writ Petition was filed in this Court praying for a direction to the
respondents to hold pre-medical and pre-dental examination in Hindi
D and other regional languages.

It was contended that pre-medical studies in medical and dental
•
examination should be permitted in Hindi and other regional languages \?-----
and not in English alone, that admission should not be refused and/or
examinations should not be held in English alone if the examinees or the
E entrants sought to appear in Hindi or other regional languages, and
that by not holding the examinations in Hindi or other regional
languages, there was a breach of Article 29(2).

Dismissing the writ petition as withdrawn, the Court,

F HELD: 1.1 The jurisdiction conferred on the Supreme Court
y
under Article 32 is an important and integral part of the Indian Con-
stitution but violation of a fundamental right is the sine qua non for
seeking enforcement of those rights by the Supreme Court. [591D-EJ

1.2 Not holding entrance examination in any particular language,
G be it Hindi or regional language cannot amount to denial of admission
on the ground of language. Every educational i11stitution has right to
determine or set out its method of education and conditions of examina-
tion and studies provided these do not directly or indirectly have any
casual connection with violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed
by the Constitution. It may be that Hindi or other regional languages
H are more appropriate medium of imparting education to very many and

588
HITRAKSHAK SAMITI v. U.0.1. IMUKHARJI, C.J.J 589

it may be appropriate and proper to hold the examinations, entrance or
A
otherwise, in any particular regional or Hindi Language, or it may he
that Hindi or other regional language because of development of the
.language, is not yet appropriate medium to transmute or test the
knowledge or capacity that could be had in medical and dental disci-
plines. It is a matter of formulation of policy by the State or educational
authorities in-charge of any particular situation. [591E, G & H 592A-B] B

1.3 Where the existence of a fundamental right has to be est-
ablished by acceptance of a particular policy or a course of action for
which there is no legal compulsion or statutory imperative, and on
.- which there are. dive!gent views, the same cannot be sought to .be
enforced by Article 32 of the Constitution. Article 32 of the Constitution
cannot be a means to indicate policy preference. [5928-C] c
1.4 The actions following from non-acceptance of any policy pers-
pective cannot amount to direct and casual violation of the fundamental
right of the citizens guaranteed under the Constitution of India. Court
is not the forum to adjudicate upon the questions ~ Jl.Olicy unless such a D
policy is the direct mandate of the CQnstitution. [592D]

1.5 Whether in particular facts and circumstances of the instant
case, admission to medical or dental Institution by conducting examina-
tion in Hindi or other regional languages would be appropriate or desir-
able or not, is a matter on which debate is possible and the acceptance E
of one view over the other involves a policy decision. It cannot be
appropriately dealt with by this Court, and order under Article 32 of the ·
Constitution in those circumstances would not be an appropriate
remedy. [592H, 593A]

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No. F
428 of 1989.

(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India).
'\ Dr. L.M. Singhvi, N. Wazir and D. Bhandari for the Petitioners.
G
Rajiv Dutta for the R~spondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, CJ. This is .an application under
Article 32 of the Constitution of India for issue of a writof mandamus H
590 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1990] 1 S.C.R.

A
directing the Central Government to hold-pre-medical and pre-dental
entrance examinations in Hindi and other regional languages as,
y
'
according to the petitioners, mandated_ b_y Article 29(2) of the Constitu-
tion of India: The petition is by nine petitioners. Petitioner No. I is
Hindi Hitrakshak Samiti which is stated to be a society formed with the
aim and objed of propagating and ensuring the propagation of the
B national language Hindi and other regional languages; and to further
the cause of the citizens of India who are educated in any one or more
of the languages and who face difficulty in competitive examinations in
which the medium of examination is English only.

Petitioners Nos. 3 to 10 are the students who allege that they
wish to appear in the coming PMT/PDT examinations in Hindi or
c other regional languages and are being adversely affected and dis-
criminated against, and will tie in a disadvantageous position in the
forthcoming PMT/PDT exal)lination in comparison to those who have
passed the higher secondary-or equivalent examination with English as
their medium of instruction. The petition seeks issue of writ directed
D against the Union of India, Central Board of Secondary Education and
Medical Council of India.

It is stated that in the year 1974 there was a survey by National
Council for Educati<,mal Research & Training (NCERT) which,
according to the petitioners, showed that out of the students passing
£ intermediate, about 92.5% take their examination in Hindi and other
regional languages. ;!'he petitioners allege that Kothari Commission's
report on Civil Ser\iices Examination had recommended that the
examination papers be set both in English arid Hindi and the
examinees should have a choice of answerin_g them in Enjllish, Hindi
or ~ny of the 15 regional languages Constitutionally recognised. It was
F stated that it was also noteworthy that the Kothari Commission's
report had recommended that Hindi and other regional languages in
Universities would be necessary in order to make use of the best
potential available in the country. In 1986 this Court in the case of Dr.
_l5inesh Kumar & Ors. v: Motilal Nehru Medical College, Allahabad &
Ors., [1986] 3 SCC 727 dealt with certain aspects of admission to the
G Medical College, but not on the present aspect. Letters and represen-
tations to the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, by the petitioners
were made on 23rd September, 1988 requesting the Government to
consider conducting the PMT/PTD examinations in Hindi and other
regional languages. It is stated that a letter was issued on 10th
December, 1988 by the Government of India to the effect that the
H Joint Engineering Examination (JEE) for the fiveLI.Ts. and the
-,
HITRAKSHAK SAMITI v. U.0.1. [MUKHARJI, C.J.] 591

Engineering College of Banaras be conducted in Indian languages
A
from i990 onwards. The petitioners assert that they had received
numerous letters and grievances from students with Hindi medium
background to press for this instant petition.

When the application was moved before this Court on 17th
April, ;989 this Court had issued notice. B

We have examined the matter and have heard Mr. L.M. Singh vi.
We are of the opinion that the prayers sought for herein are not such
which can be appropriately, properly and legitimately dealt with under
• Article 32 of the Constitution of India. The contention of the petition-
ers is, as mentioned hereinbefore, that pre-medical studies in medical
and dental examination should be permitted in Hindi and other c
regional languages and not in English alone, and the admission to the
Institutions should not be refused and/or examinations should not be
held in English alone if the examinees or the entrants seek to appear in
Hindi or other regional language.
D
Article 32 of the Constitution of India guarantees enforcement of
fundamental rights. It is well-settled that the jurisdiction conferred on
the Supreme Court under Article 32 ·js an important and integral part of
the Indian Constitution but violation of a fundamental right is the sine
qua non for seeking enforcement of those rights by the Supreme
Court. In order to establish the violation of a fundamental right, the E
Court has to consider the direct and inevitable consequences of the
action which is sought to be remedied or the guarantee of which is
sought to be enforced. Mr Singhvi; counsel for the petitioners, con-
tends that under Article 29(2) of the Constitution no citizen shall be
denied admission into any educational institution maintained by the
State or receiving aid out of State funds on grounds only of religion, F
. race, caste, language or any of them. He contends that by not holding
the test in Hindi or other regional languages, there is breach of Article
29(2). He also draws our attention to Article 29( 1) of the Constitution
which enjoins that any section of the citizens residing in the territory of
India or any part thereof having a distinct language, script or culture of
his own, shall have right to conserve the same. It is difficult to accept G
that in not holding entrance examination in any particular language,
be it Hindi or regional language, amounts to denial of admission on the
ground of language. Every educational institution has right to deter-
mine or set out its method of education and conditions of examination
and studies provided these do not directly or indirectly have any casual
connection with violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the H
592 SUPREME COURT REPORTS I19901 1 S.C.R.

A Constitution. It may be that Hindi or other regional languages are ·y
more appropriate medium of imparting education to very many and it
may be appropriate and proper to hold the examinations, entrance or
otherwise, in any particular regional or Hindi language, or it may be
that Hindi or other regional language because of development of that
language, is not yet appropriate medium to transmute or test the ,
B knowledge or capacity that could be had in medical and dental disci-
plines. It is a matter of formulation of policy by the State or educa-
tional authorities in-charge-of any particular situation. Where the
existence of a fundamental right has to be established by acceptance of
a particular policy or a course of action for which there is no legal
compulsion or statutory imperative, and on which there are divergent
views, the same cannot be sought to be enforced by Article 32 of the
c Constitution. Article 32 of the Constitution cannot be a means to
indicate policy preference.

It is difficult to contend that the actions following from non-
>-- ,
acceptance of any policy perspective, amount to direct and causal
D violation of the fundamental right of the citizens guaranteed under the
Constitution of India. Court is not the forum to adjudicate upon the
questions of policy unless such a policy is the direct mandate of the
Constitution. )....
It is well-settled that judicial review, in order to enforce a funda-
E mental right, is permissible of administrative, legislative and govern-
mental action or non-action, and that the rights of the citizens of this ...-'--
country are to be judged by the judiciary and judicial forums and not
by the administrators or executives. But it is equally true that citizens '1
of India are not to be governed by the Judges or judiciary. If the
governance is illegal or violative of rights and obligations, other ques-
F tions may arise out whether, as mentioned herein before, it has to be a r
policy decision by the Government or the authority and thereafter
enforcement of that policy, the Court should not be, and we hope
would not be an appropriate forum for decision.

In the background of the facts and the circumstances of the case
G and the nature of controversy that has arisen, we are of the opinion
that proper and appropriate remedy in a situation where enforcement
of the right depends upon the acceptance of a policy of examination for >-
admission in any particular language to the Institution on that basis, is
a matter of policy. Whether in particular facts and the circumstances of
this case admission to medical or dental Institution by conducting
H examination in Hindi or other regional languages would be appro-
HITRAKSHAK SAMIT! v. U.0.1. [MUKHARJI, C.J.J 593

priate or desirable or not, is a matter on which debate is possible and A
the acceptance of one view over the other involves a policy decision. It
cannot be appropriately dealt with by this Court, and order under
Article 32 of the Constitution in those circumstances would not be an
appropriate remedy.

Counsel for the petitioners drew our attention to the facts that B
notice had been issued to the respondent. That is true. On a closer
examination of this matter we are of the opinion that in view of the

-
controversy involved herein, we should not proceed with this applica-
tion on that basis any further.

Counsel for the petitioners then wanted to withdraw this writ c
petition. He is permitted to do so, and the writ petition is dismissed as
withdrawn but this will not prejudice the rights, if any, of the petition-
ers, legal or otherwise, to take appropriate steps, if any, as they 11)3Y
be advised, in accordance with law .
•
N.P.V. Petition dismissed.

,