Holding

The exemption is a valid classification aimed at achieving substantive equality and does not offend Article 14; the petitions are dismissed.

Summary

The petitioners, candidates from the Hindi belt, challenged a 1979 notification that exempted candidates from the North Eastern States and Union Territories (Arunachal Pradesh, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland) from taking Paper I on Indian Languages in the Civil Services Examination, alleging discrimination and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court examined whether the exemption constituted an unreasonable classification and whether it infringed the principle of equality before law. The Court held that the exemption was a reasonable, developmentally sensitive classification aimed at providing substantive equality to linguistically disadvantaged groups and furthering national integration. It found no violation of Article 14 and dismissed the writ petitions. Consequently, the notification remained in force, allowing the linguistic concession for candidates from the specified regions.

Issues considered

Does the exemption of candidates from North Eastern States/UTs from Paper I on Indian Languages violate Article 14 of the Constitution?
Is the classification made by the 1979 notification a reasonable and non-discriminatory measure?
Can the State make linguistic concessions in the Civil Services Examination without breaching constitutional equality?

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 14

Subjects

language policyequality before lawArticle 14Civil Services ExaminationNorth Eastern stateslinguistic discriminationaffirmative actionconstitutional law

Judgment

A JAVED NIAZ BEG AND ANR.
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.
April 17, 1980
B
[V, R. KRISHNA IYER, 0. CliINNAPPA REDDY AND A. P. SEN, JJ.J

Language /01mula-Competition to All India Civil Services-Paper / on
Indian Languagts made optional but not compulsory for candidates hailing from
the North Eastern States/Union Territories of Arunachal Pradesh, Manipur,
Meglia/aya, Mizoram and Noga/and-Whether the Notification by the U.P.S.C.
c dt. 17~3·79 discrimi11atory and offends Article 14 of the Constitution.

Dismissing the Writ Pe~itions, the. QJurt

HJ;',W; !.. Language. is speech, sentiment, life, literature and other' dear
values rolled into one and that is why when State policy on language goes
awry explosive tensions erupt and Courts cannot allow )egalism to over-ride
D realism when asked to quash some sensitive linguistic forniula with emotive
overtones. The realisation that language is at the root of culture, that com-
munities sometimes sacrifice their very existence for survival of their mother
tongue and that tolerance and mutual accommodation on the linguistic front
are integral to national integration must persuade the Court to keep its hands
off the delicate strategic policy of the State relating to the people's langaage.
Indeed, the rich diversity of India and the indispensable unity of the nation
E make it a linguistic imperative that a spirit of generosity to territorial com-
munities especially minorities .without political pull, is of the quintessence of
our Constitutiono! policy. f,35 D, B-OJ

2. Equality before the law is the kernel of our constitutional order. But
equality is not a static, rigid formal or pedantic concept. A sensitised social
scientist will easily agree that.alleq~ithety is ?ynanuW·c, flexible,. creative, anHd - - (
F developmentally sensitive, espec1 y m Third orld conditions. [73 5 0 - ,
736 A] /

3. The integrity of India is a supreme value. The languages of India are
®arest to the, people who speak them. the North Eastern StatesfUnion
Territories of Arunachal Pradesh, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram and Naga-
land have handicaps in the matter of language. The Eighth Schedule to the
G Constitution has set out the prominent languages of India which are written
and spoken by large populations between Kashmir and Kanyakumari. 11ut "L
this rich tapestry, for its very beauty, must afford equal opportunity for those F
linguistically less advanced groups who are outside· the Eighth schedule and
may suffer serious disabilities if forced to take examinations in those languages.
Logically. an option for them to take or not to take Paper I on Indian
Ulllguages is a facility which puts them on par with the rest. Once it is
H understood that eqaalisation is part of the dynamics of equality, this concession
is not contravention of equality but conducive to equality. It helps a handi-
capped groups and does not hamper those who are alread. [736 H. 737 A-Cl
:J. N. BEG v. UNION (Krishna Iyer, !.) 735

The exemption iranted will encourage disabled groups into integrating
themselves with the nation. More and more of successful candidates from
these border areas coming into the mainstream of our Central Public Services
is a tribute to national integration and democratic foundation. On the other
hand, Procrustean equality by insistence on the linguistic 'have-nots' being
mated on a par with the linguistic 'haves' is productive of inequality. Both
equalisation as a measure of equality and national integration as a homogenisa·
• lion of the people of the country, require the step that has been taken. There B
is no discriminatioi:i in this. On the cotµrary there is a sensitive appreciation "
of .the situ_ation prevailing in those states which operates for a better egalite
among unequals. [737 CE]

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition Nos. 660-661/1980.
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution).
R. K. Jain for the Petitioner.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by:

KRISHNA IYER, J. Language is speech, sentiment, life, literature
and° other dear values rolled into one and that is why when State policy D
on language goes awry explosive tensions erupt and courts cannot
allow legalism to over-ride realism when asked tp quash some sensi-
tive linguistic formula with el)lotive overtones. This prefatory caveat
and its profoubd implications must be appreciated before we eat the
forbidden fruit of policy-making by striking down the Central Govern-
ment's amendatory notification bearing on language papers for Central
E
Services Examination or the all India Services Examination. The realisa-
tion that language is at the root of culture, that communities sometimes
sacrifice their very existence for survival of their mother tongue and
that tolerance and mutual accommodation on the linguistic front are
integral to national integration must persuade the court to keep its
F
'y- hands off the delicate stragetic policy of the State relating to the peo-
ple's language. Indeed, the rich diversity of India and the indispens-
• able unity of the nation make it a linguistic imperative that a spirit of
generosity to territorial commuriities especially minorities infront poli-
tical pull. is of the quintessence of our constitutional policy. Challenges
to the language formula prescribed by the ·oovernment of India in the G
rules for the combined competitive examinations to the All India
Services and the like have to be viewed against 'this back-drop. In
short, the perspective which we propose to adopt has to be perceptive
of the linguistic .values of India with its plurality of tongues, dialects
and languages. Equality before the la~ is the kernel of our consti-
tutional order. But equality is not a static, rigid, formal or pedantic B
concept. A sensitised social scientist will easily agree that equality is.
dynamic, flexible, creative and developmentally sensitive, especially

,
-·- --"- .. "'~
... ;.
.- *'

I - .
' .. · :,, - ~ ''' - '
7:l6 SUPREME COOR'!' REPORTS [1980] 3 S.C.R.

A in the Third World conditions like ours. Once this imaginative ap-
proach is adopted, the submission of counsel will lo~e all force. Indeed, ~
it will be countei:_·productive of the equality on which it is formally
fo1mded as we will presently indicate:
These writ petitions are by candidates of the Hindi belt o'f India,
8 who ~hallenge certain amendments to the Rules for the competitive •
examinations to the All India Services and allied categories. We may
extract the relevant part of the notification dated 17-3-1979 .:
"No. 13018/5/78-AIS(I) : The following amendments are here-
by made in the Rules for the Combined Competitive Examina-
tion-Civil Services Examination, 1979 published in Part I
c Section I of the Gazette of India Extra ·ordinary dated 15th
/
•
January 1979 vide this Department's Notification No. 13018/5/
78-AIS(I) dated the 15th January, 1979
(!) x x x x x x x
(2) x x x x x x x
D
(3) Note (ii) under para I of Section Il(B) Appendix I is
re-numbered as Note (iii) and the following is inserted as Note
(ii) :-
"The paper I on Indian Languages will not, however, be com-
pulsory for candidates hailing from the North Eastern States/
Union Territories of Arunachal Pradesh. Manipur, Meghalaya,
Mizoram and Nagaland."
The gravamen/of the charge against this notification is that candi:.
dates hailing from the North Eastern States/Union Territories of
.F Arunachal Pradesh, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram and Nagaland
are not obligated to take Paper I on Indian languages. Why should
this discrimination be shown in their favour, nrges counsel for th~
Petitioners. While favourable treatment for women and children,
backward classes, scheduled castes and scheduled tribe is sanctified
by the Constitution, the linguistic concession shown to the Indian
brethren in the remote regions we have just referred to is castigated
G as unconstitutional, unequal and invidiously discriminatory. In the
familiar jargon, c~unsel:contends that inequality among equals is .the )-
intent and effect of the Notification and the vice of discrimination
must prove lethal to its validity. We are not impressed with this
submission.
i
·u The integrity of India is a supreme value. The languages of India
are dearest . to the people who speak them. It is notorious that
the· North Eastern States/Union Territories of Arunachal Pradesh,
J. N. BEG v. UNION (Krishna Iyer,/.) 737

Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram and Nagaland have handicaps in the
matter of language. The Eighth Schedule to the Constitution has set
ont the prominent languages of India which are written and spoken
by large populations between Kashmir and Kanyakumari. But this
rich tapestry, for its very \beauty, must afford equal opportunity
for those linguistically less· ac;lvanced groups who are outside the
• Eighth Schedule and may suffer serious disabilities if forced to
take examinations in those languages. Logically, an option for them
to take or not to take Paper I on Indian languages is a facility
which puts them on par with the rest. Once we understand that

r equalisation is part of the dynamics of equality, this concession is
not contravention of equality but conducive to equality. It helps a
handicapped group and does not hamper those who are ahead.
c
A realistic appraisal of the linguistic landscape of the North
Eastern States of our motherland will leave no thinking Indian on
doubt that the exemption granted will encourage disabled groups into
integrating themselves with the nation. More and more of successful
candidates from these border areas coming into the mainstream of
our Central Public Services is a tribute to national integration and
democratic foundation. On the other hand, Procrustean equality by
insistence on the linquistic 'have-nots' being treated on a par with the
linguistic' 'haves' is productive of inequality. Both equalisation as
a measure of equality and national integration as a homogenisation
of the people of the country, require the step that has been taken. E
We discern no discrimination. On the contrary, we find a sensitive
appreciation of the situation prevailing in thNe States and operates
for a better egalite among unequals.
While we dismiss these writ petitions, we hope that the objective
of the Notification will be fulfilled in the years ahead by more and F
more of our brothers and sisters from the frontier States participat-
ing in national administration at the civil services level.

S.R. Petitions dismissed.
/