Supreme Court of India
STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR.versusASSOCIATED MANAGEMENT OF (GOVERNMENT RECOGNISED ..:.. UNAIDED - ENGLISH MEDIUM) PRIMARY & SECONDARY SCHOOLS & ORS.
- Citation
- 2014 INSC 360
- Decided
- 6 May 2014
- Disposal
- Disposed off
- Bench
- RAJENDRA MAL LODHA
Holding
The State cannot compel linguistic minorities to use only their mother‑tongue as the medium of instruction; the right to choose the medium of instruction at the primary stage is protected under Art. 19(1)(a) and the term ‘mother‑tongue’ in Art. 350A means the language of the linguistic minority, determined by the parent or guardian.
Summary
The Supreme Court examined the Karnataka Government Order of 29‑April‑1994 that mandated mother‑tongue or Kannada as the medium of instruction in classes I‑IV of all government‑recognised schools. The Court clarified that ‘mother‑tongue’ in Art. 350A refers to the language of the linguistic minority group, to be determined by the parent or guardian, not the child’s comfort. It held that a child (or parent) has a constitutional right to choose the medium of instruction at the primary stage under Art. 19(1)(a), not under Arts. 21 or 21A. The imposition of mother‑tongue infringes fundamental rights under Arts. 19, 29 and 30. Government‑recognised schools include both aided and unaided institutions that have obtained recognition. Finally, the State cannot, under Art. 350A, compel linguistic minorities to adopt their mother‑tongue as the sole medium of instruction. The appeals were dismissed.
Issues considered
- The meaning of ‘mother‑tongue’ under Art. 350A
- Whether a student or parent has a constitutional right to choose the medium of instruction at the primary level
- Whether imposing mother‑tongue violates fundamental rights under Arts. 14, 19, 29 and 30
- Whether ‘government‑recognised schools’ include unaided schools
- Whether Art. 350A empowers the State to compel linguistic minorities to use only their mother‑tongue as the medium of instruction
Legislation cited
- Constitution of Indias. Art. 14, s. Art. 19(1)(a), s. Art. 19(1)(g), s. Art. 19(2), s. Art. 21, s. Art. 21A, s. Art. 26, s. Art. 29(1), s. Art. 30(1), s. Art. 350A
- Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009s. Section 29(2)(f)
Subjects
mother tonguemedium of instructionArticle 350Aright to educationfundamental rightslinguistic minoritiesArticle 19Article 29Article 30government recognised schoolsprimary education
Judgment
[2014] 5 S.C.R. 1104
A STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR.
V..
ASSOCIATED MANAGEMENT OF (GOVERNMENT
RECOGNISED ..:.. UNAIDED - ENGLISH MEDIUM)
PRIMARY & SECONDARY SCHOOLS & ORS.
B (Civil Appeal Nos.5166;5190 of 2013' etc)
MAY 06, 2014
[R.M. LODHA, CJI, A. K. PATNAIK, SUDHANSU JYOTI
MUKHOPADHAYA, DIPAK MISRA AND FAKKIR
C MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, JJ.]
Constitution of India, 1950:
Art. 350-A - Imposition of mother tongue as a medium
D of instruction in all Government recognized schools in qlass
I to IV in State of Karnataka - G.O. dated 29.4.1994 - Partly
quashed by High Court - Held: The expression 'mother
tongue' in Art. 350A means the mother tongue of the linguistic
minority group in a particular State and this would obviously
E mean the language of that particular linguistic minority group
- Mother tongue in the context of the Constitution would,
therefore, mean the language of the linguistic minority in a
State and it is the parent or the guardian of child who will
decide what the mother tongue of child is - However, the
Constitution nowhere provides that mother tongue is the
F language which the child is comfortable with, and while this
meaning of "mother tongue" may be a possible meaning of
the 'expression', this is not the meaning of mother tongue in
Art. 350A nor in any other provision of the Constitution and,
therefore, Court cannot either expand the power of the State
G or restrict a fundamental right by saying that mother tongue
is the language which the child is comfortable with - Further,
State has no power under Art. 350A to compel the linguistic
minorities to choose their mother tongue only as a medium
H 1104
STATE OF KARNATAKA v. ASSO. MGT. OF PRIM. & 1105
SEC. SCHOOLS
of instruction in primary schools - Government of Karnataka A
Order dated 29. 4. 1994.
Arts. 14 and 19 - Right of a student, a parent or a citizen
to choose medium of instruction at primary stage - Held:
Right to freedom of speech and expression under Art. 19(1)(a) 8
includes the freedom of a child to be educated at the primary
stage of school in a language of the choice of the child and
the State cannot impose controls on "Such choice just because
it thinks that it will be more beneficial for the child if he is
taught in the primary stage of school in his mother tongue - C
A child or on his behalf his parent or guardian, has a right to
freedom of choice with regarc1 to the medium of instruction in
which he would like to be educated at the primary stage in
school.
Arts. 14, 19, 21 and 21-A - Imposition of mother tongue D
as a medium of instruction at primary stage - Held: If State
determines by law that in schools where free education is
provided under Art. 21A, the medium of instruction would be
in the mother tongue or in any language, the child cannot
claim as of right under Art. 21 or Art. 21A that he has a right E
to choose the medium of instruction in which the education
should be imparted to him by the State - Therefore, a child,
and on his behalf his parent or guardian, has the right to
choose the medium of instruction at the primary school stage
under Art. 19(1)(a) and not under Art. 21 or ,Art. 21A. F
Arts. 19(1)(a), 29 and 30 - Imposition of mother tongue
as a medium of instructions at primary stage - Held:
Imposition of mother tongue affects the fundamental rights
under Arts. 19, 29 and 30 - State cannot stipulate as a
condition for recognition that the medium of instruction for G
children studying in classes I to IV in minority schools
protected under Arts. 29(1) and 30(1) and in private unaided
schools enjoying the right to carry on any occupation under
Art. 19(1 )(g) would be the mother tongue of the children -
Government recognized schools will not only include H
1106 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 5 S.C.R.
A government aided schools but also unaided schools which
have been granted re.cognition.
The instant appeals and the writ petition involved the
legality of the Karnataka Gov~rnment Order dated
29.4.1994 whereby it was provided, inter alia, that medium
8
of instruction in the State should be mother tongue or
Kaannada with effect from the academic year 1994-95 in
all Government recognized schools in Classes I to IV. The
writ petition challenging the Government Order dated
29.4.1994 was allowed by a Full Bench of the High Court.
C It quashed clauses 2, 3, 6 and 8 of the G.O. dated
29.4.1994 and upheld rest of the G.O. When the mattes
came to be listed before a Division Bench of the Supreme
Court, it referred the following questions for
consideration by the Constitution Bench:
D
"(i) What does Mother tongue mean? If it referred to
as the language in which the child is comfortable
with, then who will decide the same?
(ii) Whether a student or a parent or a citizen has a
E right to choose a medium of instruction at primary
stage?
(iii) Does the imposition of mother tongue in any way
affect the fundamental rights under Arts. 14, 19, 29
F and 30 of the Constitution?
(iv) Whether the Government recognized schools are
inclusive of both government-aided schools and
private & unaided schools?
G (v) Whether the State can by virtue of Art. 350-A of
the Constitution compel the linguistic minorities to
choose their mother tongue only as medium of
instruction in primary schools?"
H Disposing of the matters, the Court
STATE OF KARNATAKA v. ASSO. MGT. OF PRIM. & 1107
SEC. SCHOOLS
HELD: A
Question No. 1 :
1.1. The Constitution of India, 1950 is not just an
ordinary Act which the court has to interpret for the
purpose of declaring the law, but is a mechanism under B
which the laws are to be· made. [para 24] [1131-E-F]
A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras 1950 SCR 88 =AIR
1!=150 SC 27 - referred to.
1.2. The only provision in the Constitution which C
contains the expression "mother tongue" is Art. 350A. A
mere reading of Art. 350A would show that it casts a duty
on every State and every local authority within the State .
to provide adequate facilities for instruction in the mother
tongue at the primary stage of education to children D
belonging to linguistic minority groups. Therefore, the
expression 'mother tongue' in Art. 350A means the
mother tongue of the linguistic minority group in a
particular State and this would obviously mean the
language of that particular linguistic minority group. [para E
24-25] [1131-E; 1133-F-G]
1.3. Mother tongue in the context of the Constitution
would, therefore, mean the language of the linguistic
minority in a State and it is the parent or the guardian of F
the child who will decide what the mother tongue of child
is. The Constitution nowhere provides that mother
tongue is the language which the child is comfortable
with, and while this meaning of "mother tongue" may be
a possible meaning of the 'expression', this is not the
meaning of mother tongue in Art. 350A or in any other G
provision of the Constitution and therefore, the Court
cannot either expand the power of the State or restrict a
fundamental right by saying that mother tongue is the
language which the child is comfortable with. [para 26]
[1133-H; 1134-A-C] H
1108 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 5 S.C.R.
A Question No. 2:
2.1. The word 'freedom' in Art. 19 of the Constitution
means absence of control by the State and Art. 19(1)
provides that the State will not impose controls on the
citizen in the matters mentioned in sub-clauses
8
(a),(b),(c),(d),(e) and (g) of Art. 19(1) except those specified
in clauses (2) to (6) of Art. 19. In all matters specified in
clause (1) of Art. 19, the citizen has, therefore, the liberty
to choose, subject only to restrictions in clauses (2) to
C ·(6) of Art. 19. [para 28] [1135-C-D]
2.2. Freedom or choice in the matter of speech and
expression is absolutely necessary for an irtdividual to
develop his personality in his own way and this is one
reason, if not the only reason, why under Art. 19(1 )(a)
D every citizen has been guaranteed the r!ght to freedom
of speech and expression. (para 29] (1136-D]
Ramesh Thappar v. The State of Madras ~950
SCR 594 =AIR 1950 ~C 124; Sakal Papers {P) Ltd. v. Union
E of India 1962 SCR 842 = AIR 1962 SC 305; Bennett
Coleman & Co. v. Union of India 1973 (2) SCR 757 = (1972)2
SCC 788 Odyssey Communications (P) Ltd. v. Lokvidayan
Sanghatana 1988 (1) Suppl. SCR 486 = (1988) 3. SCC 410;
Secretary, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting,
F Government of India & Ors. v. Cricket Association of Bengal
& Ors. 1995 (1) SCR 1036 = (1995) 2 SCC 161; !Jnni
Krishnan, J.P. & Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. 1993
(1) SCR 594 = (1993) 1 SCC 645 - referred to.
'.On Liberty' - Essay by John Stuart Mill; 'A Grammar
G of Politics' - by Harold J.'Laski - referred to.
2.3. The right to freedom of speech and expression
under Art. 19(1 )(a) of the Constitution includes the
freedom o( a child to be educated at the primary stage of
H school in a language of the choice of the child and the
STATE OF KARNATAKA v. ASSO. MGT. OF PRIM. & 1109
SEC. SCHOOLS
State cannot impose controls on such choice just A
because it thinks that it will be more beneficial for the
child if he is taught in the primary stage of school in his
mother tongue. [para 31] [1137-D-E]
2.4. This Court, therefore, holds that a child or on his
behalf his parent or guardian, has a right to freedom of B
choice with regard to the medium of instruction in which
he would like to be educated at the primary stage in
school. It cannot be accepted that the right to freedom
of speech and expression in Art.19(1)(a) of the
Constitution does not include the right of a child or on C
his behalf his parent or guardian, to choose the medium
of instruction at the stage of primary school. [para 31]
[1137-E-F]
2.5. Once it is held that the freedom of speech and
expression will include the right of a child to be educated D
in the medium of instruction of his choice, the only
permissible limits of this right will be those covered under
clause (2) of Art.19 of the Constitution. [para 32] [1138-
H; 1139-A]
E
2.6. Under Arts. 21 and 21A of the Constitution, a
child has a fundamental right to claim from the State free
education upto the age of 14 years. The language of Art.
21A further makes it clear that such free education which
a child can claim from the State will be in a manner as
the State may, by law, determine. If, therefore, the State F
determines by law that in schools where free education
is provided under Art. 21A, the medium of if'!struction
would be in the mother tongue or in any language, the
child cannot claim as of right under Art. 21 or Art. 21A that
he has a right to choose the medium of instruction in G
which the education should be imparted to him by the
State. The High Court was not right in coming to the
conclusion that the right to choose a medium of
instruction is implicit in the right to education under Arts.
21 and 21 A. [para 33] [1139-E-H] H
1110 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 5 S.C.R.
A Unni Krishnan, J.P. & Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh &
=
Ors. 1993 (1) SCR 594 (1993) 1 SCC 645 - referred to.
2.7. Therefore, a child, and on his behalf his parent
or guardian, has the right to choose the medium of
instruction at the primary school stage under Art. 19(1 )(a)
8
and not under Art. 21 or Art. 21A of the Constitution. [para
33] [1140-A-B]
Question No. 3:
c 3.1. A reading of clause (1) of Art. 29 of the
Constitution provides that any section of the citizens
residing in the territory of India or any part thereof having
a distinct language, script or culture of its own shall have
the right to conserve the same and clause (1) of Art. 30
0 provides that all minorities, whether based on religion or
language, shall have the right to establish and administer
educational institutions of their choice. [para 35] [1140-
G-H]
In re: The Kera/a Education Bill, 1957 (1959) SCR 995
E - referred to.
3.2. A Constitution Bench of this Court in D.A. V.
College, Bhatinda*, has held that minorities have a right
to establish and administer educational institutions of
F 'their choice', and therefore, they have the choice of
medium of instruction in which education will be imparted
in the institutions established and administered by them.
[para 36) [1141-A, E]
*D.A. V. College, etc. etc. v. State of Punjab & Ors. (1971)
G 2 SCC 269 - referred to.
3.3. Under Art. 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, a citizen
has the right to practise any profession, or to carry on
any occupation, trade or business. The word
H "occupation" in Art. 19(1 )(g) has been interpreted to
STATE OF KARNATAKA v. ASSO. MGT. OF PRIM. & 1111
SEC. SCHOOLS
include the activity which results in imparting of A
knowledge to the students even if there is no element of
profit generation in such activity. [para 38] [1143-E-Ff
T.M.A. Pai Foundation & Ors. v. State of Karnataka &
Ors. 2002 (3) Suppl. SCR 587 = (2002) 8 SCC 481 - B
referred to.
3.4. However, unlike Art. 30(1) of the Constitution, Art.
19(1 )(g) does not have the word "choice". The absence
of the word "choice" does not make a material difference
because Art. 19 is titled "Right to Freedom" and the word C
"freedom" along with the word "any" before the word
"occupation" in Art. 19(1)(g) would mean that the right to
establish and administer an educational institution will
include the right of a citizen to establish a school for
imparting education in a medium of instruction of his D
choice. If a citizen thinks that he should establish a
school and in such a school, the medium of instruction
should be a particular language then he can exercise
such right subject to the reasonable regulations made by
.the State under Art. 19(6) of the Constitution. [para 38] E
[1143-F-H; 1144-A]
3.5. This Court is, thus of the considered opinion that
a private unaided school which is not a minority school
and which does not enjoy the protection of Arts. 29(1) and F
30(1) of the Constitution can choose a medium of
instruction for imparting education to the children in the
school. [para 38] [1144-B]
3.6. It is, however, well settled that all educational
institutions can be subject to regulations by the State for G
inter alia maintenance of proper academic standards.
Thus, whether it is a private unaided institution enjoying
the right under Art. 19(1 )(g) of the Constitution or whether
it is a private institution enjoying the special protection
of a minority institution under Art. 30(1) of the H
1112 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 5 S.C.R.
A Constitution, the State has the power to adopt regulatory
measures which must satisfy the test of reasonableness.
Moreover, the State may exercise this regulatory power
either by making a law or by issuing an executive order.
[para 39] [1144-C; 1145-A-B]
B
3.7. The reasons given by the Division Bench of this
Court in English Medium Students Parents Association
to uphold the Government order of the State of Karnataka
dated 19.06.1989 are that the Government had issued a
corrigendum on 22.06.1989 and a reading of the
C Government order after the corrigendum would show that
there was no element of compulsion at the primary stage
any longer that the medium of instruction from I standard
to IV standard would be in mother tongue. The said
decision is, therefore, not an authority for the proposition
D that prescription of mother tongue in classes I to IV in the
primary school can be compelled by the State as a
regulatory measure for maintaining the standards of
education. [para 41] [1147-H; 1148-A-C]
E English Medium Students Parents Association v. State
of Karnataka & Ors. 1993 (3) Suppl. SCR 934 = (1994) 1
sec 550 - referred to.
3.8. This Court is of the considered opinion that
though the experts may be uniform in their opinion that
F children studying in classes I to IV in the primary school
can learn better if they are taught in their mother tongue,
the State cannot stipulate as a condition for recognition
that the medium of instruction for children studying in
classes I to IV in minority schools protected un~er Arts.
G 29(1) and 30(1) of the Constitution and in private unaided
schools enjoying the right to carry on any occupation
under Art. 19(1 )(g) of the Constitution w~uld be the
mother tongue of the children. This Court holds that the
imposition of mother tongue affects the fundamental
H
STATE OF KARNATAKA v. ASSO. MGT. OF PRIM. & 1113
SEC. SCHOOLS
rights under Arts. 19, 29 and 30 of the Constitution. [para A
42] (1148-C-F]
Gujarat University & Anr. v. Shri Krishna Ranganath
=
Mudholkar & Ors. 1963 Suppl. SCR 122 AIR 1963 SC 703
- distinguished.
B
Question No. 4:
4. All schools, whether they are established by the
Government or whether they are aided by the
Government or whether they are not aided by the
Government, require recognition to be granted in C
accordance with provisions of the appropriate Act or
Government Order. Accordingly, Government recognized
schools will not only include government aided schools
but also unaided schools which have been granted
recognition. [para 43] (1149-G-H; 1150-A] o
Unni Krishnan, J.P. & Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh &
Ors. 1993 (1) SCR 594 = (1993) 1 sec 645; T. M.A. Pai
Foundation & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors. 2002 (3)
Suppl. SCR 587 = (2002) 8 SCC 481 - referred to.
E
Question No. 5:
5. Under Art. 350A of the Constitution it is provided
that it shall be the endeavour of every State and of every
local authority within the State to provide adequate
facilities for instruction in the mother tongue at the F
primary stage of education to children belonging to
linguistic minority groups. A linguistic minority under Art.
30(1) of the Constitution has the right to choose the
medium of instruction in which education will be imparted
in the primary stages of the school which it has G
established. Art. 350A, therefore, cannot be interpreted to
empower the State to compel a linguistic minority in
violation of its fundamental right under Art. 30(1 ), to
choose its mother tongue only as a medium of
instruction in a primary school established by it. This H
1114 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 5 S.C.R.
A Court accordingly holds that State has no power under
Art. 350A of the Constitution to compel the linguistic
minorities to choose their mother tongue only as a
medium of instruction in primary schools. [para 44] [1150-
C-F]
B
State of Bombay v. Bombay Education Society &
Ors.1955 SCR 568 =AIR 1954 SC 561; Usha Mehta & Ors.
v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. 2004 (2) Suppl. SCR 226 =
(2004) 6 SCC 264; Rev. Father W Proost & Ors. v. The State
c of Bihar & Ors. 1969 (2) SCR 73, The Ahmedabad St. Xavier's
College Society & Anr. v. State of Gujarat & Anr.1975
(1) SCR 173 = (1974) 1 SCC 717; P.A. lnamdar & Ors. v.
State of Maharashtra & Ors.2005 (2) Suppl. SCR 603 =
(2005) 6 sec 537 - cited.
D Case Law Reference:
1993 (3) Suppl. SCR 934 referred to Para 2
1963 Suppl. SCR 122 distinguished para 12
1955 SCR 568 cited para 13
E
(1971) 2 sec 269 referred to para 13
2004 (2) Suppl. SCR 226 cited para 15
2002 (3) Suppl. SCR 587 referred to para 15
F 1995 (1) SCR 1036 referred to Para 18
1993 (1) SCR 594 referred to Para 21
(1959) SCR 995 referred to para 22
1969 (2) SCR 73 cited para 22
G
1975 (1) SCR 173 cited para 22
2005 (2) Suppl. SCR 603 cited Para 22
1950 - 33 referred to Para 24
H 1950 SCR 594 referred to para 30
STATE OF KARNATAKA v. ASSO. MGT. OF PRIM. & 1115
SEC. SCHOOLS
1962 SCR 8 42 referred to para 30 A
1973 (2) SCR 757 referred to para 30
1988 (1) Suppl. SCR 486 referred to para 30
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. B
5166-5190 of 2013.
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.02.2012 passed
by the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka,
Bangalore in Writ Appeal No. 27 40 of 1997 (EON)
c
WITH
W.P (C) No. 290 of 2009
C.A No. 5090 of 2014
D
C.A Nos. 5191-5199 of 20~3.
, Prof. Ravi Varma, AG, K. N. Bhat, Anita Shenoy,
Gangadhar J.M .. Vishrurti Vijay, Neha Singh, K.V. Bharathi
Upadhyaya, Mohan V. Katarki, Shailesh Madiyal, Bharadwaj E
Iyengar, Sanjiv Sen, Muthu Kumar. Vijay Kumar Paradeshi,
Jagjit Singh Chhabra, K.V. Dhananjay, Shekhar G. Devasa,
V.N. Raghupathy. M P. Srikanth, P.R. Ramasesh, Anantha
. Naryana M.G , G.R. Mohan, Prabha Swami, S.N. Bhat, T.V.
Ratnam, Sharanagouda Patil (for S. Legal' Associates), C.M.
Angadi, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, B.K. Pal, Gurudatta
F
, Ankolekar for the Appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
A. K. PATNAIK, J. 1. Leave granted in S.L.P. (C) G
No.32858 of 2013.
Facts leading to the reference to the Constitution
Bench:
H
1116 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 5 S.C.R.
A 2. The Governr:nent of Karnataka issued a Government
Order dated-19.06.1989 prescribing that "from 1st standard to
IVth standard, mother tongue will be the medium of
instruction". On 22.06.1989, the Government of Karnataka
issued a corrigendum substituting the aforesaid words in the
B earlier Government Order dated 19.06.1989 by the following
words:
"from 1st standard to IVth standard, where it is expected
that normally mother tongue will be the medium of
instruction."
c
The orders dated 19.06.1989 and 22.06.1989 were
challenged before this Court and a Division Bench of this Court
in its judgment dated 08.12.1993 in English Medium Students
Parents Association v. State of Karnataka & Ors. [(1994) 1
D SCC 550] hekl that the two orders of the Government of
Karnataka were constitutionally valid.
3. Thereafter, in cancellation of all earlier orders pertaining
to the subject, the Government of Karnataka issued a fresh
E order dated 29.04.1994 regarding the language policy to be
followed in primary and high schools with effect from the
academic year 1994-1995. Clauses 2 to 8 of the Government
Order dated 29.04.1994, with which we are concerned in this
reference, are extracted hereinbelow:-
F "2: The medium of instruction should be mother tongue
or Kannada, with effect from the academic year 1994-95
in all Government recognized schools in classes 1 to 4.
3. The students admitted to 1st standard with effect from
G the academic year 94-95, should be taught in mother
tongue or Kannada medium.
4. However, permission can be granted to the schools to
continue to teach in the pre-existing medium to the
students of standards 2 to 4 during the academic year
H 94-95.
STATE OF KARNATAKA v. ASSO. MGT. OF PRIM. & 1117
SEC. SCHOOLS [A.K. PATNAIK, J.]
5. The students are permitted to change over to English A
or any olher language as medium at their choice, from
5th standard.
6. Permission can be granted to only students whose
mother tongue is English, to study in English medium in
B
classes 1 to 4 in existing recognized English medium
schools.
7. The Government will consider regularization of the
existing unrecognized schools as per policy indicated in
paragraphs 1 to 6 mentioned above. Request of schools C
who have complied with the provisions of the code of
education and present policy of the government will be
considered on the basis of the report of the Zilla
Panchayat routed through commissioner for public
instructions. D
8. It is directed that all unauthorized schools which do not
comply with the above conditions, will be closed down."
Thus, these clauses of the Government order dated
29.04.1994 provided that medium of instruction should be E
mother tongue or Kannada with effect from the academic year
1994-1995 in all Government recognized schools in classes I
to IV and the students can be permitted to change over to
-English or any other language as medium of their choice from
class V. The Government Order dated 29.04.1994, however, F
clarified that permission can be granted to only those students
whose mother tongue is English, to study in English medium
in classes I to IV in existing recognized English medium
schools.
G
4. Aggrieved by the clauses of the Government Order
dated 29.04.1994 which prescribed that the medium of
instruction in classes I to IV in all Government recognized
schools will be mother tongue or Kannada only, the Associated
Management of Primary and Secondary Schools in Karnataka
H
1118 SUPREME COURT . REPORTS' [2014] 5 S.C.R.
A filed Writ Petition No.14363 of 1994 and contended inter alia
that the right to choose the medium of instruction in classes I
to IV of a school is a fundamental right under Articles 19(1 )(a),
19(1)(g), 26, 29 and 30(1) of the Constitution and that the
impugned clauses of the order dated 29.04.1994 of the
B Government of Karnataka are ultra vires the Constitution. The
State of Karnataka and its officers, on the other hand, relied
on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in English
Medium Students Parents Association v. State of Kamataka
& Ors. (supra) and contended that the State in exercise of its
c power to regulate primary education can, as a matter of policy,
prescribe that the inedium of instruction in classes I to IV would
be in mother tongue of the child or Kannada. The State of
Karnataka also contended that Article 350A of the Constitution
casts a duty on the State to provided adequate facilities for
instruction in the mother tongue at the primary stage of
0
education to children belonging to linguistic minority groups and
the Government of Karnataka, after considering a report of
experts in the field of education, has prescribed in ti•"
Government Order dated 29.04.1994 that medium of instruction
for children studying in classes I to IV shaii be in the mother
E tongue of the child.
5. A Full Bench of the Karnataka High Court heard the writ
petition and all other connected writ petitions and in its common
judgment dated 02.07.2008, held:
F
"(1) Right to education is a fundamental right being a
species of right to life flowing from Article 21 of the
Constitution. By virtue of Article 21-A right to free and
compulsory primary education is a fundamental right
guaranteed to all children of the age of six to fourteen
G
years. The right to choose a medium of instruction is
implicit in the right to education. It is a fundamental right
of the parent and the child to choose the medium of
instruction even in primary schools.
H
STATE OF KARNATAKA v. ASSO. MGT. OF PRIM. & 1119
SEC. SClrfOOLS [A.K. PATNAIK, J.]
(2) Right to freedom of speech and expression includes A
the right to choose a medium of instruction.
(3) Imparting education is an occupation and, therefore, the
right to carry on any occupation under
Article 19(1 )(g) includes the right to establish and 8
administer an educational institution of one's choice.
'One's choice' includes the choice of medium of
instruction.
(4) Under Article 26 of the Constitution of India every
religious denomination has a right to establish and C
maintain an institution for charitable purposes which
includes an educational institution. This is a right available
to majority and minority religious denominations.
(5) Every section of the society which has a distinct o
language script or culture of its own has the fundamental
right to conserve the same. This is a right which is
conferred on both majority and minority, under
Article 29(1) of the Constitution.
(fl\ All minorities, religious or linguistic, have a right to E
establish and administer educational institutions of their
choice under Article 30(1) of the Constitution.
(7) Thus, every citizen, every religious denomination, and
every linguistic and religious minority, have a right to F
establish, administer and maintain an educational
institution of his/its choice under Articles
· 19(1 )(g), 26 and 30(1) of the Constitution of India, which
includes the right to choose the medium of instruction.
(8) No citizen shall be denied admission to an educational G
institution only on the ground of language as stated in
Article 29(2) of the Constitution of India.
H
1120 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 5 S.C.R.
A (9) The Government policy in introducing Kannada as first
language to the children whose mother tongue is Kannada
is valid. The policy that all children, whose mother tongue
is not Kannada, the official language of the State, shall
study Kannada language as one of the subjects is also
B valid. The Government policy to have motl'ler tongue or
regional language as the medium of instruction at the
primary level is valid and legal, in the case of schools run
or aided by the State.
(10) But, the Government policy compelling children
c studying in other Government recognized schools to have
primary education only in the mother tongue or tlie regional
language is violative of Article 19(1) (g), 26 and 30(1) of the
Constitution of India."
D The High Court accordingly allowed the writ petitions and
quashed clauses 2, 3, 6 and 8 of the .Government order dated
29.04.1994 in their application to schools other than schools
run or aided by the Government but upheld rest of the
Government order dated ·29.04.1994.
E
6. Aggrieved by the judgment dated 02.07.2008 of the Fu!I
Bench of the High Court, the State of Karnataka and the
Commissioner of Public Instruction, Bangalore, have filed Civil
Appeal Nos.5166-5190 of 2013. Fifteen educationists claiming
to be keen that primary education in the State of Karnataka from
F I to IV standard should be in the mother tongue of the child or
Kannada have also filed Writ Petition (C) No.290 of 2009 for
declaring that the Government Order dated 29.04.1994 is
constitutionally valid in respect of un_ilided Covernment
recognised primary schools tind for a writ· of mandamus
G directing the State Government to implement the Government
Order dated 29.04.1994.
7. As the judgment dated 02.07.2008 of the Full Bench of
the High Court was not implemented for more than a year, a
H Division Bench of the High Court passed an order dated
STATE OF KARNATAKA v. ASSO. MGT. OF PRIM. & 1121
SEC. SCHOOLS [A.K. PATNAIK, J.]
03.07.2009 in Writ Appeal No.1682 of 2009 and other A
connected matters asking the Government of Karnataka to
comply with the judgment dated 02.07.2008 of the Full Bench
of the High Court and aggrieved by the said order dated
03.07 .2009 in Writ Appeal No.1682 of 2009, different officers
of the Education Department of the Government of Karnataka B
have filed Civil Appeal Nos.5191-5199 of 2013.
8. A learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court
directed the State of Karnataka in Writ Petition No.3044 of
1994 to grant permission to an institution to run English C
medium school from 1st standard to 4th standard by order
dated 22.01.1996. The order of the learned Single Judge was
challenged before the Division Bench of the High Court in Writ
Appeal No.2740 of 1997, but on 21.02.2012 the Division
Bench of the High Court dismissed the writ appeal saying that
the order dated 08.07.2008 of the Full Bench of the High Court D
in Associated Management of Primary and Secondary
Schools in Karnataka v. The State of Karnataka & Ors. has
not been stayed by this Court in the Special Leave Petition
under Article 136 of the Constitution. Aggrieved by the order
dated 21.02.2012 passed by the Div.ision Bench in Writ Appeal E
No.2740 of 1997, the State of Karnataka has filed Special
Leave Petition (C) No.32858 of 2013.
The questions referred to the Constitutfon Bench:
9. All these matters were heard by a Division· Bench of this F
Court and on 05.07.2013, the Division Bench passed an order
referring the following questions for consideration by the
Constitution Bench:
"(i) What does Mother tongue mean? If it referred to as the G
language in which the child is comfortable with, then who
will decide the same?
(ii) Whether a student or a parent or a citizen has a right
to choose a medium of instruction at primary stage?
H
1122 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 5 S.C.R.
A (iii) Does the imposition of mother tongue in any way affect
the fundamental rights under Article 14, 19, 29 and 30 of
the Constitution?
(iv) Whether the Government recognized schools are
inclusive of both government-aided schools and private &
B
unaided schools?
(v) Whether the State can by virtue of Article 350-A of the
Constitution compel the linguistic minorities to choose their
mother tongue only as medium of instruction in primary
c schools?"
In its order dated 05.07.2013, the Division Bench also
observed that the Constitution Bench may take into
consideration ancillary or incidental questions which may
D arise during the course of hearing of the cases and further
directed that all other connected matters including petitions/
applications shall be placed before the Constitution Bench.
Contentions of learned counsel for the State of
Karnataka:
E
10. At the hearing before the Constitution Bench, Professor
Ravi Varma Kumar, the learned Advocate General for the State
of Karnataka, submitted that the State Reorganization
Commission, 1955 in paragraphs 773 to 777 of its report has
F referred to the resolution adopted at the Provincial Education
Ministers' Conference held in August, 1949 that the medium
of instruction and examination in the junior basic stage must
be the mother tongue of the child and that the mother tongue
of the child will be the language declared by the parent or
G guardian to be the mother tongue. He submitted that this
resolution adopted at the Provincial Education Ministers'
Conference held in August, 1949, has been approved by the
Government of India and now serves as a guide for the State
Governments in making arrangements for the education of the
H school-going children in the respective States. He submitted
STATE OF KARNATAKA v. ASSO. MGT. OF PRIM. & 1123
SEC. SCHOOLS [AK. PATNAIK, J.]
that after the report of the State Reorganization Commission, A
1955, Article 350A has been introduced in the Constitution
providing that it shall be the endeavour of every State and of
every local authority within the State to provide adequate.
facilities for instruction in the mother tongue at the primary stage
of education to children belonging to a linguistic minority group. B
11. The learned Advocate General submitted that, in this
background, the Government order dated 29.04.1994 was
issued by the Government of Karnataka prescribing that the
medium of instruction for children studying in classes I to IV in
all primary schools recognized by the Government will be mother C
tongue or Kannada from the academic year 1994-95. He cited
the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in English
Medium Students Parents Association v. State of Karnataka
& Ors. (supra) to submit that experts are unanimous in their
view that the basic knowledge can easily be acquired by a child D
through his mother tongue and that the State Government has
the power to lay down a policy prescribing that the medium of
instruction for children studying in I to IV standards in all
Government recognized schools in Karnataka will be Kannada
or mother tongue. E
12. The learned Advocate General next submitted that the
High Court was not right in coming to the conclusion that the
right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under
Article 19(1 ){a) of the Constitution includes the right to choose
F
a medium of instruction and that in exercise of this right, it is a
fundamental right of the parents and the child to choose a
medium of instruction in the primary schools. He submitted that
similarly the High Court was not right in coming to the conclusion
that the right to establish and administer an educational
G
institution under Articles 19(1 )(g) and 26 of the Constitution will
include the right to choose a medium of instruction. He
submitted that in any case if the State takes a policy decision
that the medium of instruction for the children studying.in classes
I to IV will be their mother tongue, such a policy decision of the
H
1124 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 5 S.C.R.
A State Government will be within the regulatory powers of the
State. He cited the judgment of this Court in Gujarat University
& Anr. v. Shri Krishna Ranganath Mudholkar & Ors. [AIR
1963 SC 703] in which a Constitution Bench of this Court has
taken the view that the State Legislature has the regulatory
B power to legislate on medium of instruction in institutions of
primary or secondary education. He submitted that under
Article 162 of the Constitution, the State Government has
executive powers co-extensive with its legislative powers and
therefore the Government order dated 29.04.1994 prescribing
c that the medium of instruction of all children studying in classes
I to IV will be mother tongue was well within the powers of the
State Government. He argued that even if it is held that children
and parents have a right to choose a medium of instruction for
classes I to IV or that citizens who have established schools
have a fundamental right under Article 19(1 )(g) of the
0
Constitution to choose the medium in which education will be
imparted to the children studying in their schools, the State
could restrict their right by virtue of its regulatory powers and
prescribe that a medium of instruction for children studying in
E classes I to IV will be their mother tongue.
13. The learned Advocate General next submitted that the
High Court was again not right in coming to the conclusion that
the Government policy compelling children studying in schools
recognized by the Government to have primary education only
F in mother tongue or the regional language is violative of Article
30(1) of the Constitution. He submitted that so long as the State
permits a medium of instruction to be the same as the language
of the minority community which has established the
educational institution, the fundamental rights under Article 29(1)
G and 30(1) of the Constitution are not violated because the
purport of Articles 29(1) and 30(1) of the Constitution is to
promote the language of every community including the
language of a linguistic minority. He cited State of Bombay v.
Bombay Education Society & Ors. [AIR 1954 SC 561] wherein
H a Constitution Bench of this Court has held that a minority group
STATE OF KARNATAKA v. ASSO. MGT. OF PRIM. & 1125
SEC. SCHOOLS [AK. PATNAIK, J.]
such as the Anglo-Indian community, which is based, inter alia, A
on religion and language, has the fundamental right to conserve
its language, script and culture under Article 29(1) and has the
right to establish and administer educational institutions of its
choice under Article 30(1) and, therefore, there must be implicit
in such fundamental right, the right to impart education in its own B
institution to the children of its own community in its own
language. He also cited D.A. V. College, etc. etc. v. State of
Punjab & Ors. [(1971) 2 SCC 269] wherein a Constitution
Bench of this Court has held that the purpose and object df
linguistic States is to provide greater facility for the development C
of the people of that area educationally, socially and culturally
in the language of that region but while the State or the
University has every right to provide for the education of the
majority in the regional medium, it is subject to the restrictions
contained in Articles 25 to 30 of the Constitution and
accordingly neither the University nor the State could impart
D
education in a medium of instruction in a language and script
which stifles the language and script of any section of the
citizens. According to him, the rights under Articles 29(1) and
30(1) of the Constitution are thus not affected by the order dated
29.04.1994 of the Government of Karnataka because it E
prescribes that the students in classes I to IV will be imparted
education in the medium of instruction of the mother tongue of
the children and the mother tongue of the childreri will be none
other than the language of their linguistic community.
F
14. The learned Advocate General further submitted that
this Court has held in Usha Mehta & Ors. v. State of
Maharashtra & Ors. [(2004) 6 SCC 264] that the State can
impose reason.able regulations for protecting the larger
interests of the State and the nation even in the case of minority G
educational institutions enjoying the right under Article 30(1) of
the Constitution and the "choice" that could be exercised by the
minority community in establishing educational institutions is
subject to such reasonable regulations imposed by the State,
but while imposing regulations, the State shall be cautious not
H
1126 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 5 S.C.R.
A to destroy the minority character of institutions. He argued that
the Government Order dated 29.04.1994 by providing that the
medium of instruction of children studying in classes I to IV in
primary schools will be the mother tongue of the children does
not in any way destroy the minority character of the institutions
8 protected under Article 30(1) of the Constitution.
15. The learned Advocate General submitted that the High
Court has relied on the judgment of this Court in TM.A. Pai
Foundation & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors. [(2002) 8 SCC
481] in coming to the conclusion that the Government order
C dated 29.04.1994 violates the fundamental rights under Articles
19(1 )(g) and 30(1) of the Constitution. He submitted that the
High Court has not noticed some of the paragraphs of the
majority judgment in TM.A. Pai Foundation & Ors. v. State of
Karnataka & Ors. (supra) in coming to its conclusions. He
D referred to the paragraph 54 of the aforesaid majority judgment
in which it has been held that the right to establish and maintain
institutions for religious and charitable purposes under Articles
19(1 )(g) and 26(a) of the Constitution is subject to regulations
made by the State for maintaining educational standards etc.
E He referred to paragraph 115 of the majority judgment in which
it has also been held that the right of the religious and linguistic
minorities to establish and administer educational institutions
of their choice is not absolute and that such institutions have
to follow statutory measures regulating educational standards
F etc. He submitted that in paragraph 122 of the majority
judgment in T.M.A. Pai Foundation & Ors. v. State of
Karnataka & Ors. (supra), however, it has been held that such
regulations must satisfy the test of reasonableness. He
submitted that the Government Order dated 29.04.1994
G prescribing that the medium of instruction for all children
studying in classes I to IV in primary schools in the State of
Karnataka would be the mother tongue of the children is a
regulatory measure and satisfies the test of reasonableness.
16. The learned Advocate General finally submitted that
H
STATE OF KARNATAKA v. ASSO. MGT. OF PRIM. & 1127
SEC. SCHOOLS [A.K. PATNAIK, J.]
Article 21A of the Constitution is titled 'Right to Education' and A
provides that the State shall provide free and compulsory
education to all children of the age of six to fourteen years in
such manner as the State may, by law, determine. He argued
that Article 21A is thus the sole depository of the right to
education and it is not open for any citizen to invoke any other B
fundamental right like Article 19(1)(a) or Article 21 to contend
that he has a right to be educated in a medium of instruction
of his choice. He submitted that Parliament has made the Right
of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 under
Article 21A of the Constitution, and Section 29(2)(f) of this Act c
provides that the medium of instruction shall, as far as
practicable, be the child's mother tongue. He submitted that the
High Court was, therefore, not right in coming to the conclusion
that the right to choose a medium of instruction is implicit in
the right to education under Articles 21 and 21A of the 0
Constitution.
Contentions on behalf of the respondents who
support the Government order dated 29.04.1994:
17. Mr. K. N. Bhat, learned senior counsel appearing for E
respondent nos. 2, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 15, 17 and 18 in Civil
Appeal No.5166 of 2013, submitted that mother tongue is the
language in which the child is the most comfortable. He cited
Usha Mehta & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (supra') in
which a three-Judge Bench of this C9urt clearly held that the F
State can impose reasonable regulations in the larger interests
of the State and the nation even on institutions established by
religious and linguistic minorities and protected under Article
30(1) of the Constitution and that the word 'choice' in Article
30 of the Constitution is subject to such regulation imposed by G
the State. He submitted that the only caution that the State has
to exercise is that by imposing such regulations the minority
character of the institutions is not destroyed. He submitted that
accordingly if the State Government has issued the order dated
29.04.1994 under Article 162 of the Constitution prescri9ing that H
1128 SUPREME cqµRT REPORTS (2014) 5 S.C.R.
A the medium of instruction far all children studying in classes I
to IV would be mother tongue, such an order being regulatory
in natuce and 'not affecting the minority character of the
institutions, does not in any way affect the right guaranteed
under Article 30(1) of the Constitution. He submitted that the
B conclusion of the High Court that the Government Order dated
29.04.1994 insofar as it compels minority institutions to adopt
medium of instruction for students studying in classes I to IV
as mother tongue is violative of right under Article 30 of the
Constitution, therefore, is not correct.
c 18. Mr. Bhat next submitted that Article 19(1 )(a) of the
Constitution guarantees the right to freedom of speech and
expression to all citizens and the only restrictions that the State
can impose on this right are those mentioned in Article 19(2)
of the Constitution. He submitted that a reading of Article 19(2)
D of the Constitution will show that it empowers the State to make
law imposing reasonable restrictions in the interest of the
sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State,
friendly relation with foreign States, public order, decency or
morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or
E incitement to an offence, but does not empower the State to
impose reasonable restrictions in the interest of general public.
He vehemently argued that if the right to freedom of speech and
expression is interpreted so as to include the right to choose
the medium of instruction, the State will have no power to
F impose any reasonable restrictions in the larger interests of the
State or the nation on this right to choose the medium of
instruction and such an interpretation should be avoided by the .
Court. He submitted that the rationale of the right to freedom
of speech and expression in Article 19(1 )(a) of the Constitution
G and the power of the State to impose reasonable restrictions
under Article 19(2) of the Constitution in the interests of the
sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State,
friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or
morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or
H incitement to an offence, have been explained in the judgments
STATE OF KARNATAKA v. ASSO. MGT. OF PRIM. & 1129
SEC. SCHOOLS [A.K. PATNAIK, J.]
of P.B. Sawant, J. and B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J. in Secretary, A
Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, ·Government of India
& Ors. v.-Cricket Association of Bengal & Ors. [(1995) 2 SCC
161]. He submitted that considering these serious
consequences which may arise if we take the view that the right
to freedom of speech and expression includes the right to B
choose medium of instruction, we should leave this question
open if it is not necessary to decide it in this case .
.
Contentions on behalf of the respondents who
challenge the Government order dated 29.04.1994:
c
19. Mr. Mohan V. Katarki, learned counsel appearing for
respondent no.1 in Civil Appeal No.5166 of 2013, submitted
that under Article 350A of the Constitution, the State has no
power to compel any educational institution to adopt mother
tongue as the medium of instruction. He submitted that Article D
350A of the Constitution only casts a duty on every State and
every local authority within the State to provide adequate
facilities for instruction in the mother- tongue at the primary stage
of education to children belonging to linguistic minority groups,
and does not empower the State to interfere with right to E
freedom of speech and expression and the right to establish
and administer schools under Article 19 of the Constitution.
20. Mr. Katarki submitted that the reliance placed by the
State on the decision of this Court in English Medium Students
Parents Association v. State of Karnataka & Ors. (supra) in F
which the earlier Government Order dated 22.06.1989
prescribing mother tongue as the medium of instruction was
upheld is misplaced as the reason given by this Court in the
aforesaid decision for upholding the order dated 22.06.1989
of the State Government is that the order did not have an G
element of compulsion. He submitted that the Government
order dated 29.04.1994, on the other hand, makes it
compulsory for all Government recognized schools including
private unaided schools to adopt mother tongue of the child as
the medium of instruction in classes! to IV. H
11.30 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 5 S.C.R.
A 21. Mr. Katarki submitted that this Court has held in Unni
Krishnan, J.P. & Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.
[(1993) 1 sec 645] that tile right to education of a child up to
the age of 14 years is part of the right to life under Article 21
of the Constitution and, therefore, the High Court was right in
8 coming to the conclusion that the right to be educated in the
medium of instru.ction of the choice of the child is also part of
the right unde.r Article 21 of the Constitution. He submitted that
similarly the right to freedom of speech and expression will
include the right to choose the medium of instruction in which ·
C the child is to be educated and the High Court was, therefore,
right in coming to the conclusion that compelling a child to be
educated through a particular medium .of instruction, such as '
his mother tongue, is violative of his right under Article 19(1 )(a)
of the Constitution·.
D 22. Mr. Katarki next submitted that Article 30(1) of the
Constitution confers on religious and linguistic minority
communities the right to establish and administer educational
institutions of their choice and the word "choice" clearly
indicates that the State cannot compel an institution established
E by a religious or linguistic minority to impart education in their
institution to the children of classes I to IV only in the mother
tongue of the children. In support of this submission, he relied
on the decisions of this Court in In re The Kera/a Education
Bill, 1957 [1959 SCR 995], Rev. Father W Proost & Ors. v.
F The State of Bihar & Ors. [1969 (2) SCR 73], O.A. V. College,
etc. etc. v. State of Punjab & Ors. (supra), O.A V. College,
Bhatinda, etc. v. The State of Punjab & Ors. (supra) and The
Ahmedabad St. Xavier's College Society & Anr. v. State of
Gujarat & Anr. [(1974) .1 ·SCC 717]. He submitted that even
G the educational institutions which have not been established by
a religious or linguistic minority have a right to freedom under
Articles 19(1 )(g) and 26 of the Constitution and in exercise of
this right, they have a right to choose the medium of instruction
in which they want to impart education to their students. In
H support of this proposition, he relied on the majority judgment
STATE OF KARNATAKA v. ASSO. MGT. OF PRIM. & 1131
SEC. SCHOOLS [AK. PATNAIK, J.]
in T.M.A. Pai Foundation & Ors. v. State of Kamataka & Ors. \
(supra) and P.A. lnamdar & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra &
ors. [(2005) 6 sec 537].
23. Mr. G.R. Mohan, appearing for respondent Nos.10 and
11 in Civil Appeal No.5186 of 2013, while adopting the 8
aforesaid submissions qf Mr. Katarki, further submitted that
Article 26(3) of the Univ.ersal Declaration of Human Rights
adopted by the members of the United Nations including India
. provides that parents have a prior right to choose the kind of
education that shall be given to their children. Mr. K.V. C
Dhananjay, learned counsel appearing for some of the
respondents, also adopted the submissions of Mr. Katarki.
...
Our answers to the five' questions referred to us:
I
24. Question No.(i): "What does Mother tongue mean? o
If it referred to as the language in which the child is
comfortable with, then who will decide the same?".
As this question is referred to us in context of our
Constitution, we have to answer this question by interpreting
the expression "mother tongue" as used in the Constitution. We E
must not forget that the Constitution is not just an ordinary Act
which the court has to interpret for the purpose of declaring the
law, but is a mechanism under which the laws are to be made.
As Kania C.J. observed in AK. Gopalan v. State of Madras
(AIR 1950 SC 27): F
"Although we are to interpret words of the Constitution on
the same principles of interpretation as we apply to any
ordinary law, these very principles of interpretation compel
us to take into account the nature and scope ofthe Act that G
we are interpreting - to remember that it is a Constitution,
a mechanism under which laws are to be made and not a
mere Act which declares what the law is to be."
The only provision in the Constitution which contains the
H
1132 , SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014) 5 S.C.R.
A expression "mother tongue" is Article 350A. We must therefore
understand why Article 350A was inserted in the Constitution.
The State Reorganization Commission, 1955, made
recommendations for reorganizing the States on linguistic
basis. In Part IV of its report, the State Reorganization
B Commission, 1955, has devoted Chapter I to "safeguards for
linguistic groups" and has recommended tlilat the linguistic
minorities of the States should have the right to instruction in
mother tongue. In support of this recommendation, the State
Reorganization Commission, 1955, has relied on the resolution
c adopted at the Provincial Education Ministers' Conference held
in August, 1949, which had been apprpved by the Government
of India and which had served as a guide to the State
Governments in making arrangements for the education of the
school=going children whose mother tongue is different from the
regional language. This resolution is extracted hereinbelow:
0
"The medium of instruction and examination in the junior
b,asic stage must be the mother tongue of the child· and,
where the mother tongue is different from the regional or
State languagE!, arrangements must be made for
E instruction in the mother tongue by appointing at least one
teacher, provided there are not less than 40 pupils
speaking the language in the whole school or 10 such
pupils in a class. The mother tongue will be the language
declared by the parent or guardian to be the mother
F tongue. The regional or State language, where it is different
from the m'other tongue, should be introduced not earlier
than Class Ill and not later than the 'end of the junior basic
stage. In order to facilitate the switching-over to the regional
language as medium in the secondary stage, children
G ·Should be given the op.tion of answerir:ig questions in their
mother tongue, for the first two years after the junior basic
stage."
From the aforesaid resolution adopted at the Provincial
H Education Ministers' Conference held in August, 1949, and
STATE OF KARNATAKA v. ASSO. MGT. OF PRIM. & 1133
SEC. SCHOOLS [A.K. PATNAIK, J.]
from the recommendations of the State Reorganization A
Commission, 195!?, it is clear that while recommending .
language as the basis for reorganization of the States in India,
the Commission wanted to ensure that the children of the
linguistic minority which had a language different from the
language of the State were imparted education at the primary B
stage in their mother tongue. In the resolution adopted at the
Provincial Education Ministers' Conference held in August,
1949, extracted above, it was also clarified that the mother
tongue will be the language declared by the parent or guardian
to be the mother tongue. c
25. After the recommendations of the State Reorganization
Commission, 1955, Article 350A was inserted in the
Constitution by the Constitution (Vllth Amendment) Act. Article
· 350A reads:
D
"It shall be the endeavour of every State and of every local
authority within the State to provide adequate facilities for
instruction in the mother tongue at the primary stage of
education to children belonging to linguistic minority
groups; and the President may issue such directions to any . E
State as he considers necessary or proper for securing
the provision of such facilities."
A mere reading of Article 350A o{ the Constitution wou.ld
show that it casts a duty on every State and every local authority
within the State to provide adequate facilities for instruction in F
the mother tongue at the primary stage of education to children
belonging to linguistic minority groups. Hence, the expression
'mother tongue' in Article 350A means the mother tongue of
the linguistic minority group in a particular State and this would
obviously mean the language of that particular linguistic minority G
group.
26. Mother tongue in the context of the Constitution would,
t~erefore, mean the language of the linguistic minority in a State
alnd it is the parent or the guardian of the child who will decide H
1134 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 5 S.C.R.
A what the mother tongue of child is. The Constitution nowhere
provides
, that mother tongue is the language which the child is
c9mfortable with, and while this meaning of "mother tongue"
may be a possible meaning of the 'expression', this is not the
meaning of mother tongue in Article 350A of the Constitution
B or in any other provision of the Constitution and hence we
cannot either expand the power of the State or restrict a
fundamental right by saying that mother tongue is the language
which the child is comfortable with. We accordingly answer
question no.(i).
c 27. Question No.(ii): Whether a student or a parent or a
citizen has a right to choose a medium of instruction at
primary stage ?
The High Court has held that the parent or a child has a
D right to choose medium of instruction in primary schools as part
of the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article
19(1 )(a) of the Constitution and the right to choose the medium
of instruction is also implicit in the right to education under
Articles 21 and 21A of the Constitution. We have to decide
E whether these conclusions of the High Court that the parent or
a child has a right to choose the medium of instruction in primary
schools as part of the right to freedom of speech and
expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution and also
has a right to choose the medium of instruction in primary
F schools under Articles 21 and 21A of the Constitution are
correc\.
28. Article 19 of the Constitution is titled "Right to
Freedom" and it states that all citizens shall have the right-
G (a) to freedom of speech and expression;
(b) to assemble peaceably and without arms;
(c) to form associations or unions;
H
STATE OF KARNATAKA v. ASSO. MGT. OF PRIM. & 1135
SEC. SCHOOLS [A.K. PATNAIK, J.]
(d) to move freely throughout the territory of India; A
(e) to reside and settle iri any part of the territory of
India;
(f) xx x
.B
(g) to practise any profession, or to carry on any
occupation, trade or business.
The word 'freedom' in Article 19 of the Constitution means
absence of control by the State and Article 19(1) provides that C
the State will not impose controls on the citizen in the matters
mentioned in sub-clauses (a),(b),(c),(d),(e) and (g) of Article
19(1) except those specified in clauses 2 to 6 of Articles 19 of
the Constitution. In all matters specified in clause (1) of Article
19, the citizen has therefore the liberty to choose, subject only
0
to restrictions in clauses (2) to (6) of Article 19.
29. One of the reasons for giving this liberty to the citizens
is contained in the famous essay 'On Liberty' by John Stuart
Mill. He writes:
E
"Secondly, the principle requires liberty of tastes and
pursuits; of framing the plan of our life to suit our own
character; of doing as we like, subject to such
consequences as may follow: without impediment from
our fellow creatures, so long as what we do does not harm F
them, even though they should think our conduct foolish,
perverse, or wrong."
According to Mill, therefore, each individual must in certain
matters be left alone to frame the plan of his life to suit his own
character and to do as he likes without any impediment and G
even if he decides to act foolishly in such matters, society or
on its behalf the State should not interfere with the choice of
the individual. Harold J. Laski, who was not prepared to accept
Mill's attempts to define the limits of State interference, was also
H
1136 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [20141 5 S.C.R.
A of the opinion that in some matters the individual must have the
freedom of choice. To quote a passage from "A Grammar of
Politics" by Harold J. Laski:
"My freedoms are avenues of choice through which I
may, as I deem fit, construct for myself my own course
B
of conduct. And the freedoms I must possess to enjoy a
general liberty are those which, in their sum, will
constitute the path through which my best self is capable
of attainment. That is not to say it will be attained. It is to
say only that I alone can make that best self, and that
c without those freedoms I have not the means of
manufacture at my disposal."
Freedom or choice in the matter of speech and expression
is absolutely necessary for an individual to develop his
D personality in his.:bwn way and this is one reason, if not the only
reason, why under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution every
citizen has been guaranteed the right to freedom of speech and
expression.
E 30. This Court has from time to time expanded the scope
of the right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed
under Article 19(1 )(a) of the Constitution by consistently
adopting a very liberal interpretation. In Romesh Theppar v.
The State of Madras [AIR 1950 SC 124], this Court held that
freedom of speech and expression includes freedom of
F propagation of ideas which is ensured by freedom of circulation
and in Sakal Papers (P) Ltd. v. Union of India [AIR 1962 SC
305], this Court held that freedom of speech and. expression
ca_rries with it the right to publish and circulate one's ideas,
·opinions and views. In Bennett Coleman & Co. v. Union of
G India [(1972)2 SCC 788], this Court also held that the freedom
of press means right of citizens to speak, publish and express
their views as well as right of people to read and in Odyssey
Communications (P) Ltd. v. Lokvidayan Sanghatana [(1988)
3 SCC 41 O], this Court has further held that freedom of speech
H
STATE OF KARNATAKA v. ASSO. MGT. OF PRIM. & 1137
SEC. SCHOOLS [A.K. PATNAIK, J.]
and expression includes the right of citizens to exhibitfilms on A
Doordarshan.
31. This Court also went into the question whether receiving
information or education by a citizen was part of his right to
freedom of speech and expression in Secretary, Ministry of
8
Information & Broadcasting, Government of India & Ors. v.
·Cricket Association of Bengal & Ors. (supra) and held that the
right to freedom of speech and expression in Article 19(1(a) .
of the Constitution will not only include the right to impart
information but also the right to receive information. In his
opinion, P.B. Sawant, J. observed that the right to freedom of C
speech and expression also includes the right to educate, to
inform ·and to entertain and also the right to be educated,
informed and entertained. In line with the earlier decisions of
this Court, we are of the view that the right to freedom of speech
and expression under Article 19(1 )(a) of the Constitution D
includes the freedom of a child to be educated at the primary
stage of school in a language of the choice of the child and the
State cannot impose controls on such choice just because it
thinks that it will be more beneficial for the child if he is taught
in the primary stage of school in his mother tongue. We, E
therefore, hold that a child or on his behalf his parent or
guardian, has a right to freedom of choice with regard to the
medium of instruction in which he would like to be educated at
the primary stage in school. We cannot accept the submission
of the learned Advocate General that the right to freedom of F
speech and expression in Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution
does not include the right of a child or on his behalf his parent
or guardian, to choose the medium of instruction at the stage
of primary school.
32. We cannot also accept the submission of Mr. Bhat that G
if the right to freedom of speech and expression in Article
19(1 )(a) of the Constitution is held to include the right to choose
the medium of instruction at the stage of primary school, then
the State will have no power under clause (2) of Article 19 to
H
1138 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 5 S.C.R.
A put reasonable restrictions on the right to freedom of speech
and expression except in the interest of sovereignty and
integrity of India, the security of the State, friEmdly relations with
foreign States, public order, decency or morality or in relation
to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence.
8 In our view, the Constitution makers did not intend to empower
.
the State to impose reasonable restrictions on the valuable right
to freedom of speech and expression of a citizen except for
the purposes mentioned in clause (2) of Article 19 of the
Constitution because they thought that imposing other
C restrictions on the freedom of speech and 1~xpression will be
harmful to the development of the personali1y of the individual
citizen and will not be in the larger interest of the nation. In the
words of Pantanjali Shastri speaking for the majority of the
judges in Romesh Thappar v. The State of Madras (supra):
D "Thus, very narrow and stringent limits have been set to
permissible legislative abridgment of the right of free
speech and expression and this was doubtless due to· the
realisation that freedom of speech and of the press lay at
the foundation of all democratic organisations, for without
E free political discussion no public educa1tion, so essential
for the proper functioning of the proc1~sses of popular
Government, is possible. A freedom of such amplitude
might involve risks of abuse. But thEl framers of the
Constitution may well have reflected with Madison who was
F 'the leading___spirit in the preparation of the First
Amendment of the Federal Constitution'', that "it is better
leave a few of its noxious branches to their luxuriant growth
than, by pruning them away, to injure the vigour of those
yielding the proper fruits" (Quoted in Near v. Minnesotta,
283 U.S. 607 at 717-8)."
G
Therefore, once we come to the conclusion that the
freedom of speech and expression will include the right of a
child to be educated in the medium of instruction of his choice,
the only permissible limits of this right will be those covered
H
STATE OF KARNATAKA v. ASSO. MGT. OF PRIM. & 1139
SEC. SCHOOLS [AK. PATNAIK, J.]
under clause (2) of Article 19 of the Constitution and we cannot A
exclude such right of a child from the right to freedom of speech
and expression only for the reason that the State will have no
Rower to impose reasonable restrictions on this right of the child
for purposes other than those mentioned in Article 19(2) of the
Constitution. B
33. We may now consider whether the view taken by the
High Court in the impugned.judgment that the right to choose
a medium of instruction is implicit in the right to education under
Articles 21 and 21A of the Constitution is correct. Article 21 of
the Constitution provides that no person shall be deprived of C
his life or personal liberty except according to procedure
established by law. In Unni Krishnan, J.P. & Ors. v. State of
Andhra Pradesh & Ors. (supra), a Constitution Bench of this
Court has held that under Article 21 of ~ Constitution every
child/citizen of this country has a right to free'education until he D
completes the age of 14 years. Article 21A of the Constitution
provides that the State shall provide free and compulsory
education to all children of the age of six to fourteen year.; in
such manner as the State may, by law, determine. Under
Articles 21 and 21A of the Constitution, therefore, a child has E
a fundamental right to claim from the State free education upto
the age of 14 years. The language of Article 21A of the
Constitution further makes it clear that such free education
which a child can claim from the State will be in a manner as
the ~tate may, by law, determine. If, therefore, the State F
determines by law that in schools where free education is
provided under Article 21A of the Constitution, the medium of
instruction would be in the mother tongue or in any language,
the child cannot claim as of right under Article 21 or Article 21A
of the Constitution that he has a right to choose the medium of G
instruction in which the education should be imparted to him
by the State. The High Court, in our considered opinion, was
not right in coming to the conclusion that the right to choose a
medium of instruction is implicit in the right to education under
Articles 21 and 21A of the Constitution. Our answer to Question H
1140 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2014] 5 S.C.R.
A No.(ii), therefore, is that a child, and on his behalf his parent or
guardian, has the right to choose the medium of instruction at
the primary school stage under Article 19(1 )(a) and not under
Article 21 or Article 21A of the Constitution.
34. Question No.(iii): Does the imposition of mother
8 tongue in any way affect the fundamental rights under Article
14, 19, 29 and 30 of the Constitution?
As the High Court has not come to the conclusion in the
impugned judgment that imposition of mother tongue in any way
C affects the fundamenta.I. right under Article 14 of the Constitution,
it is not necessary for us to decide this question. We will have
to decide whether imposition of mother ton~gue in any way
affects the fundampntal rights under Articles '.I 9, 29 and 30 of
the Constitution.
D
35. Articles 29(1) and 30(1) of the Constitution are quoted
herein below:
29. Protection of interests of minorities:- (1) Any
section of the citizens residing in the territory of India or
E any part thereof having a distinct language, script or culture
of its own shall have the right to conserve the same.
30.Right of minorities to establish and administer
educational institutions:- (1) All minorities, whether
F based on religion or language, shall have the right to
establish and administer educational institutions of their
choice."
A reading of clause (1) of Article 29 of the Constitution
provides that any section of the citizens residing in the territory
G of India or any part thereof having a distinct language, script or
culture of its own shall have the right to conserve the same and
clause (1) of Article 30 provides that all minol'ities, whether
based on religion or language, shall have the right to establish
and administer educational institutions of their c:hoice.
H
STATE OF KARNATAKA v. ASSO. MGT. OF PRIM. & .1141
SEC. SCHOOLS [A.K. PATNAIK, J;]
36. In D.A. V. College, Bhatinda, etc. v. The State of A
Punjab & Ors. (supra), the Punjabi u·niversity in exercise of its
power under Section 4(2) of Punjabi University Act (35 of
1961 ), made "Punjabi the sole medium of instruction and
examination in all colleges affiliated under Punjabi University.
It was contended inter alia before this Court that prescription B
of such medium of instruction and examination in a language
which is not the mother tongue of the mHiority which has
established the educational institution is violative of the rights
conferred under clause (1) of Article 29 and clause (1) of Article
30 of the Constitution and the Constitution Bench of this Court c
has upheld this contention in the following words:
"The right of the minorities to establish and administer
educational institutions of their choice would include the
right to have a choice of the medium of instruction also
which would be the result of reading Article 30(1) with D
Article 29(1 )."
Thus, a Constitution Bench of this Court in D.A. V. College,
Bhatinda, etc. v. The State of Punjab & Ors. (supra) has
already held that minorities have a right to establish and E
administer educational institutions of 'their choice', and
therefore tbey have the choice of medium of instruction in which
education will be imparted in the institutions established and
administered by them.
37. The contention of the learned Advocate General, F
however, is that the aforesaid decision and other decisions of
this Court have been rendered in cases where the State
imposed a medium of instruction in a language different from
the language of the minority community, but if the State
prescribes the medium of instruction to be the mother tongue G
of the child, which is the language of the minority community,
there is no violation of the right of the linguistic minority under
Article 30(1) of the Constitution. We do not find any merit in this
i contention because this Court has also held that the "choice"
of the minority community under Article 30(1) need not be H
1142 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 5 S.C.R.
•
A limited to imparting education in the language of the minority
community. In re The Kera/a Education Bill, 1957 (supra), S.R.
Das, CJ, writing the majority opinion of a se!ven Judge Bench
of this Court, held:
· "23. Having disposed of the minor point referred to above,
B
we now take up the main argument advanced before.us
as to the content of Art. 30(1 ). The first point to note is that
the article gives certain rights not only to religious
minorities but also to linguistic minorities. In the next place,
the right conferred on such minorities is to establish
c educational institutions of their choice. It does not say that
minorities based on religion should establish educational
institutions for teaching religion only. or that linguistic
minorities should have the right to estaiblish educational
institutions for teaching their languam~ only. What the
0 article says and means is that the religious and the
linguistic minorities should have the right to establish
educational institutions of their choice. There is no
limitation placed on the subjects to b1e taught in such
educational institutions. As such minorities will ordinarily
E desire that their children should be brought up properly and
efficiently and be eligible for higher university education
and qo out in the world fully equipped with such intellectual
attainments as will make them fit for entering the public
services. educational institution·s of their choice will
F necessarily include institutions impartinq general secular
education. also. In other words, the article? leaves it to their
choice to establislJ such educational institutions as will
serve both purposes, namely, the purpose of conserving
their religion, language or culture, and also the purpose of
G giving a thorough, good gen.era! education to their children."
38. We may now examine whether an unaided non-minority
school has a similar right to choos~ a medium of instruction
under Article 19(1 )(g) of the Constitution at th1e primary school
stage. Under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitutkm, a citizen has
H
STATE OF KARNATAKA v. ASSO. MGT. OF PRIM. & 1143
SEC. SCHOOLS [A.K. PATNAIK, J.]
the right to practise any profession, or to carry on any A
occupation, trade or business. In T.M.A. Pai Foundation & Ors.
v. State of Karnataka & Ors. (supra), Kirpal C..J. writing the
majority judgment interpreted this right under Article 19(1 )(g)
of the Constitution to include the right to establish and run
educational institutions. In paragraph 25 of the aforesaid B
judgment in T. M.A. Pai Foundation & Ors. v. State of
Karnataka & Ors. (supra), the majority judgment held:
"The establishment and running of an educational institution
where a large number of persons are employed as
teachers or administrative staff, and an activity is carried C
on that results in the imparting of knowledge to the
students, must necessarily be regarded as an occupation,
even if there is no element of profit generation. It is difficult
to comprehend that education, per se, will not fall under
any of the four expressions in Article 19(1 )(g). "Occupation" D
would be an activity of a person undertaken as a means
of livelihood or a mission in life. "
Thus, the word "occupation" in Article 19(1 )(g) of the
Constitution was interpreted by the majority judgment of this E
Court in T. M.A. Pai Foundation & Ors. v. State of Karnataka
& Ors. (supra), to include the activity which res~lts in imparting
of knowledge to the students even if there is no element of profit
generation in such activity. However, unlike Article 30(1) of the
Constitution, Article 19(1)(g) does not have the word "choice".
F
The absence of the word "choice", in our considered opinion,
does not make a material difference because we find that
Article 19 of the Constitution is titled "Right to Freedom" and
the word "freedom" along with the word "any" before the word
"occupation" in Article 19(1 )(g) of the Constitution would mean G
that the right to establish and administer an educational
institution will include the right of a citizen to establish a school
for imparting education in a medium of instruction of his choice.
If a citizen thinks that he should establish a school and in such.
a school, the medium of instruction should be a particular
H
1144 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 5 S.C.R.
A language then he can exercise such right subject to the
reasonable regulations m.ade by the State under Article 19(6)
of the Constitution. We are thus of the considered opinion that
a private unaided school which is not a minority school and
which does not enjoy the protection of ArticlE~s 29(1) and 30(1)
8 of the Constitution can choose a medium of instruction for
imparting education to the children in the school.
39. It is, however, well settled that all educational
institutions can be subject to regulations by the State for inter
alia maintenance of proper academic standards. While
C discussing the right to establish and administer an educational
institution under Article 19(1 )(g) of the· Constitution, Kirpal C.J ..
speaking for the majority of Judges in TM.A. Pai Foundation
& Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors. (supra}, held:
o 'The right to establish an educational institution can be
regulated; but such regulatory measures must, in general,
be to ensure the maintenance of proper academic
standards, atmosphere and infrastructure (including
qualified staff) and the prevention of mal!administration by
E those in charge of management. ..... "
Again, in the majority judgment in TM.A. Pai Foundation
& Ors. v. State· of Karnataka & Ors. (supra}, Kirpal C.J. while
discussing the right of a minority educational institution
protected under Article 30(1) of the Constitution;
F
" ...... It was permissible for the authorities to prescribe
regulations, which must be complied with, before a minority
institution could seek or retain affiliation and recognition.
But it was also stated that the regulations made by the
G authority should not impinge upon the minority character
of the institution. Therefore, a balance has to be kept
between the two objectives - that of ensuring the standard
of excellence of the institution, and that of preserving the
right of the minorities to establish and administer their
H educational institutions ...... "
STATE OF KARNATAKA v. ASSO. MGT. OF PRIM. & 1145
SEC. SCHOOLS [A.K. PATNAIK, J.]
Thus, whether it is a private unaided institution enjoying the A
right under Article 19(1 )(g) of the Constitution or whether it is a
private institution enjoying the special protection of a minority
institution under Article 30(1) of the Constitution, the State has
the power to adopt regulatory measures which must satisfy the
test of reasonableness. Moreover, the State may exercise this B
regulatory power either by making a law or by issuing an
executive order.
40. The reamed Advocate General for the State of
Karnataka relied on the judgment of this Court in Gujarat
University & Anr. v. Shri Krishna Ranganath Mudholkar & Ors. C
(supra) to submit that this power to prescribe regulations for
maintaining the standards of education would include the power
to prescribe the medium of instruction. We quote the relevant
portion of the decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court
in Gujarat University & Anr. v. Shri Krishna Ranganath D
Mudho/kar & Ors. (supra) on which he h;:is placed reliance:
"23 ...... The power to legislate in respect of primary or
secondary education is exclusively vested in the States by
item No.II of List II, and power to legislate on meClium of E
instruction in institutions of primary or secondary education
must therefore rest with the State Legislatures. Power to
legislate in respect of medium of instruction is, however,
not distinct legislative head; it resides with the State
Legislatures in which the power to legislate on education F
is vested, unless it is taken away by necessary intendment
to the contrary. Under items 63 to 65 the power to legislate
in respect of medium of instruction having regard to the
width of those items, must be deemed to vest in the Union.
Power to legislate in respect of medium of instruction, in G
so far it has a direct bearing and impact upon the
legislative head of co-ordination and determination of
standards in institutions of higher education or research
and scientific and technical institutions, must also be
deemed by item 66 List I to be vested in the Union."
H
1146 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 5 S.C.R.
A From the aforesaid quotation, we find that the Constitution
Bench has held that under the scheme of distribution of
legislative powers between the States and th1a Union, the power
to legislate in respect of primary or secondary education is
exclusively vested in the States and has further held that in
B exercise of this power the State can prescribe the medium of
instruction. The Constitution Bench, however, has not held that
this power of the State to prescribe the medium of instruction
in primary or secondary schools can be exercised in
contravention of the rights guaranteed und13r Article 19(1 )(a)
and 19(1 )(g) of the Constitution. The Constitution Bench has
c only held that if the medium of instruction has a direct bearing
or impact on the determination of standardH in institutions of
higher education, the legislative power can be exercised by the
Union to prescribe a medium of instruction. For example,
prescribing English as a medium of instruction in subjects of
D higher education for which only English books are available and
which can only be properly taught in English may have a direct
bearing and impact on the determination of standards of
education. Prescribing the medium of instruction in schools to
be mother tongue in the primary school stage in classes I to IV
E has, however, no direct bearing and impact on the
determination of standards of education, and will affect the
fundamental rights under Articles 19(1 )(a) and 19(1 )(g) of the
Constitution.
F 41. We may now consider the decision of the Division
Bench of this Court in English Medium Students Parents
Association v. State of Kamataka & Ors. (supra) on which
reliance has been placed by the State of Karnataka. In
paragraph 20 at page 560 of the aforesaid decision as
G reported in the SCC, this Court has held that all educational
experts are uniformly of the opinion that pupils should begin their
schoolil']g through the medium of their mother tongue and the
reason for this opinion is that if the tender mincls of the children
are subject to an alien medium, the learning process becomes
unnatural and inflicts a cruel strain on the children which makes
H
STATE OF KARNATAKA v. ASSO. MGT. OF PRIM. & 1147
SEC. SCHOOLS [A.K. PATNAIK, J.]
the entire learning process mechanical, artificial and torturous A
but if the basic knowledge is imparted through mothe·r tongue,
the young child will be able to garner knowledge easily. In
P.aragraph 17 at page 559 of the aforesaid judgment, the
Division Bench of this Court has also given the reasons why it
did not find the impugned Government order to be ultra vires B
Articles 14, 29(1) and 30(1) of the Constitution. These reasons
are quoted hereinbelow:
"16. In view of the liberty given to the State of Karnataka
the present GO bearing No.87 PROU SE BHA 88, C
Bangalore dated June 19, 1989 (quoted above) has come
to be passed. A corrigendum also came to be issue on
June 22, 1989 which reads as under:
"For para (i) of Order portion of the abovesaid
Government Order dated June 19, 1989 i.e., from D
the words 'From 1st standard .... subject to study' .
the following para shall be substituted:
'From 1st standard to IVth standard, where it is
expected that normally mother tongue will be the E
medium of instruction, only one language from
Appendix I will be compulsory subject of study.' "
17. A careful reading of the above GO would clearly
indicate that the element of compulsion at the primary
stage is no longer there because the GO is unequivocal F
when it says from 1st to IVth standards mother tongue will
be the medium of instruction, only one language from
Appendix I will be compulsory subject of study. From !llrd
standard onwards Kannada will be an option subjett for
non-Kannada speaking students. It is to be taught on G
voluntary basis there being no examination at the end of
the year in Kannada language ...... "
Thus, the reasons given by the Division Bench of this Court
to uphold the Government order of the State of Karnataka dated
H
1148 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 5 S.C.R.
A 19.06.1989 are that the Government had issuied a corrigendum
on 22.06.1989 and a reading of the Governmemt order after the
corrigendum would show that there was no element of
compulsion at the primary stage any longer that the medium of
instruction from I standard to IV standard would be in mother
8 tongue. The decision of this Court in English Medium Students
Parents Association v. State of Karnataka & Ors. (supra), is,
therefore, not an authority for the proposition that prescription
of mother tongue in classes I to IV in the primary school can
be compelled by the State as a regulatory measure for
C maintaining the standards of education.
42. We are of the considered opinion that though the
experts may be uniform in their opinion that children studying
in classes I to IV in the primary school can learn better if they
are taught in their mother tongue, the State cannot stipulate as
D a .condition for recognition that the medium of instruction for:,
children studying in classes I to IV in minority schools protected
under Articles 29(1) and 30(1) of the Constitution and in private
unaided schools enjoying the right to carry on any occupation
under Article 19(1 )(g) of the Constitution woulld be the mother
E tongue of the children as such stipulation. We accordingly
answer question No.(iii) referred to us and hold that the
· imposition of mother tongue affects the fundamental rights under
Articles 19, 29 and 30 of the Constitution.
F 43. Question No. (iv): Whether th El Government
recognized schools are inclusive of both government-aided
schools and private & unaided schools?"
In Unni Krishnan, J.P. & Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh
& Ors. (supra), Jeevan Reddy J. writing the jud£1ment for himself
G and for Pandian J. has held in paragraph 204 at page 753 that
the right to establish an educational institution does not carry
with it the right to recognition or the right to affiliation and that
recognition and affiliation are essential for meaningful exercise
of the right to establish and administer educational institutions.
H
STATE OF KARNATAKA v. ASSO. MGT. OF PRIM. & 1149
SEC. SCHOOLS [AK. PATNAIK, J.] -
In this judgment, the two Judges of this Court have also held A
that recognition may be granted either by the Government or
by any other authority or body empowered to accord
recognition and affiliation may be granted by the academic
body empowered to grant affiliation. In this judgment, t~e two
Judges of this Court have further held that it is open to a person B
to establish an educational institution, admit students, impart
education, conduct examination and award certificates but the
educational institution has no right to insist that the certificates
or degrees awarded by such institution should be recognized
by the State and therefore the institution has to seek such C
recognition or affiliation from the appropriate agency. In the
aforesaid case of Unni Krishnan, J.P. & Ors. v. State of
Andhra Pradesh & Ors. (supra), S. Mohan J. in his concurring
judgment has also observed in paragraph 76 at page 693 that
recognition is for the purpose of conforming to the standards
0
laid down by the State and affiliation is with regard to the syllabi
and the courses of study and unless and until they are in
accordance with the prescription of the affiliating body,
certificates cannot be conferred and hence the educational
institution is obliged to follow the syllabi and the course of the
study. These views expressed by the three Judges in the E
Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in Unni Krishnan,
J.P. & Ors. v. State ofAndhra Pradesh & Ors. (supra) have
not been departed from in the majority judgment in T.M.A. Pai
Foundation & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors. (supra). Kirpal
C.J. writing the judgment in T.M.A. Pai Foundation (supra) on F
behalf of the majority Judges has held that the fundamental right
to establish an educational institution cannot be confused with
the right to ask for recognition or affiliation. From the aforesaid
discussion of the law as developed by this Court, it is clear that
all schools, whether they are established by the Government G
or whether they are aided by the Government or whether they
are not aided by the Government, require recognition to be
granted in accordance of the provisions of the appropriate Act
or Government order. Accordingly, Government recognized
H
1150 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 5 S.C.R.
A schools will not only include government aided schools but also
unaided schools which have been granted recognition.
44. Question No.(v): whether the State can by virtue of
Article 350-A of the Constitution compel the linguistic
minorities to choose their mother tongue only as medium of
8
instruction in primary schools ?
We have extracted Article 350A of the Constitution above
and we have noticed that in this Article it is provided that it shall
be the endeavour of every State and of every local authority
C within the State to provide adequate facilities for instruction in
the mother tongue at the primary stage of education to children
belonging to linguistic minority groups. We have already held
that a linguistic minority under Article 30(1) of the Constitution
has the right to choose the medium of instruction in which
D education will be imparted in the primary stages of the school
which it has established. Article 350A therefore cannot be
interpreted to empower the State to compel a linguistic minority
to choose its mother tongue only as a medium of instruction in
a primary school established by it in violation of this
E fundamental right under Article 30(1 ). We accordingly hold that
State has no power under Article 350A of the Constitution to
compel the linguistic minorities to choose their mother tongue
only as a medium of instruction in primary schools.
45. In view of our answers to the questions referred to us,
F we dismiss Civil Appeal Nos.5166-5190 of 2013, 5191-5199
of 2013, the Civil Appeal arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.32858 of
2013 and Writ Petition (C) No.290 of 2009. There shall be no
order as to costs.
Rajendra Prasad Matters disposed of.
..
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "mother tongue"Sign in to search