USHA MEHTA AND ORS.versusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

A                        USHA MEHTA AND ORS.
                                       V.

                  ST ATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

                                MAY 5, 2004
B
             [RAJENDRA BABU, CJ., DR. AR. LAKSHMAN,\N
                      AND G.P. MATHUR, JJ.]

         Constitution of India, 1950-Article 29 & JO-Educational rights
C ofthe linguistic minority-Educational policy ofthe State ofMaharashtra-
  Imposition of the regional Marathi language as a compulsory study in
  schools run by linguistic minorities-Held, not violative of the linguistic
  minority rights guaranteed under Articles 29 and 30 or any other
  provisions of the Constitution.

D        Maharashtra State Government took a policy decision to make
    study of Marathi language compulsory throughout the schools in that
    State. As a result, the English Medium Schools run by Gujarati
    linguistic minorities were compelled to teach four languages (Hindi,
    English, Marathi and mother tongue-Gujarati) as against the accepted
E   'three-language formula'.

        According to the Petitioners, imposition of compulsory Marathi
  language is in violation of the fundamental right of the linguistic
  minority to establish an educational institution of 'their choice' under
F Article 30(1) of the Constitution; that the 'choice' is meant to achieve
  not only the purpose of conserving the minority's mother tongue,
  language etc. but also giving their children a good general education;
  that the minority, in furtherance of their fundamental right under
  Article 29(1) read with Article 30(1) of the Constitution has a choice
  to teach the other subjects (Maths, Science etc.) through such medium-
G as commends to it and correspondingly a 'negative choice' not to teach
  such subjects in any such medium that does not commend to its
  perception of good general education; that not even national or public
  interest or any State necessity can justify or legitimize any encroachment
  on the fundamental rights of a minority guaranteed under Article
H 30(1); that the impugned education policy of the State of Maharashtra
                                       226
                       USHA MEHTA v. STATE                          227
discriminates against the students belonging to linguistic minority, is A
arbitrary and discriminatory and therefore liable to be struck down.

     Dismissing the Petitions and the connected Appeals, the Court

     HELD : I.I. The impugned policy decision cannot be held
violative of the linguistic minority rights guaranteed under Articles 29 B
and 30 or any other provisions of the Constitution. (237-D]

      1.2. The right of minorities to establish and administer educational
institutions of 'their choice' under Article 30(1) read with Article 29(1)
would include the right to have choice of medium of instruction. But C
this exercise of 'choice of instructive language in schools by the
linguistic minorities is subject to the reasonable regulation imposed by
the concerned State. The State can impose reasonable regulation on the
institutions covering Article 30 for protecting the larger interest of the
State and the nation. 1234-H; 235-A, E-F]                                  D
      In Rev. Sidhajbhai Sabhai v. State of Bombay, (1963] 3 SCR 837;
St. Stephen's College v. University of Delhi, (1992] l SCC 558; TMA Pai
Foundation v. State of Karnataka, [2002] 8 SCC 481, relied on.

      2. The impugned policy decision of the State of Maharashtra was E
taken by keeping the larger interest of the State, because the official and
common business is carried on in that State in Marathi language. A
proper understanding ofMarathi language is necessary for easily carrying
out the day-to-day affairs of the people living in the State of Maharashtra
and also for proper carrying out of daily administration. Hence the F
regulation imposed by the State of Maharashtra upon the linguistic
minorities to teach its regional language is a reasonable one. (235-C, DJ

   DAV college, Bhatinda v. State of Punjab, (1971) 2 SCC 261 and
DAV College v. State of Punjab, (1971] 2 SCC 269, referred to.
                                                                          G
     3. A particular State can .validly take a policy decision to
compulsorily teach its regional language. The impugned decision taken
by the Government of Maharashtra is within the regulatory ambit of
Article 30. It is a reasonable one, which is conducive to the needs and
larger interest of State. (235-F, G)                                    H
    228               SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A       English Medium Students· Parents Association v. State of Karnataka
    and Others, 119941 I SCC 550, relied on.

        4. It is difficult to accept the proposition advanced by the
  Petitioners that minority character would only be protected by learning
B Gujarati as a First or Second language. There is enough opportunity,
  in the impugned school syllabi, for students in English medium school
  run by Gujarati minority group to offer Gujarati language as a
  composite subject. Students who want to learn Gujarati language can
  certainly learn it even according to the present scheme in English
C medium schools. It is also open to the Gujarati minority community
  to run exclusive Gujarati medium schools subject to the regulation of
  teaching Marathi language. But it won't be in the fitness of things to
  establish English medium schools and asking for not teaching the
  regional Marathi language. It is difficult to read Articles 29 and 30 in
  such a way that it contains the negative right to exclude the learning
D of regional language. Ipso facto it is not possible to accept the
  proposition that the people living in a particular State cannot be asked
  to study the regional language. While living in a different State, it is
  only appropriate for the linguistic minority to learn the regional
  language. 1235-G, H; 236-A-Bl
E
          5. The resistance to learn the regional language will lead to
    alienation from mainstream of life resulting in linguistic fragmentation
    within the State, which is an anathema to national integration. The
    learning of different languages will definitely bridge the eultural
F   barriers and will positively contribute to the cultural integration of the
    country. The impugned policy decision is in the paramount interest of
    the students who are living in the State of Maharashtra and also in the
    larger interest of the country. Therefore, it cannot be ruled that the
    impugned policy will result in destroying the minority character of the
    Gujarati community in Maharashtra. [236-C-EI
G
          6. The right of minority to establish and maintain educational
    institutions of their choice is a necessary concomitant to the right to
    conserve its distinctive language, script or culture. But this right is
    subject to Article 29(2). So if the petitioners are allowed to exclude
H   teaching of Marathi in their schools, then the right of a student whose
                      USHA MEHTA v. STATE                         229

mother tongue is Marathi will be denied opportunity to learn his A
mother tongue and regional language as well as right to admission to
a chosen school in the State of his origin for his non-proximity to
Gujarati language. [236-G, HJ

     The State of Bombay v. Bombay Education Society and Others,        B
[1955) I SCR 568, referred to.

     7. The impugned circular wherein the compulsory imposition of
Marathi language was made on all non-Marathi medium schools
directed the authorities to start teaching Marathi language from Class C
V onwards. Hence the children at the tender age are not burdened to
learn an additional language. They could very well learn in their
mother tongue. According to the accepted 'three-language formula'
the new language could only be taught from class V. On this count also
the impugned policy cannot be found fault with. The Bombay city/
region is now within the territorial limits of State of Maharashtra and, D
therefore, it is not necessary to look into this matter from the
perspective of original State of Bombay when the State and city of
Bombay was treated as a bilingual nor advert to reorganization details
for number of Gujarati speaking population in that region. [237-A-C]
                                                                        E
     CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (C) No. 132 of
1995.

     Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.

                                WITH
                                                                        F

     C.A. Nos. 1695/97, 8214of1995.

      Sunil Gupta, N.N. Goswami, Jatin Zaveri, Harish J. Jhaveri, Uday
Umesh Lalit, Vijay Panjwani, R.B. Masodkar, S.S. Shir.de, Mukesh K. G
Giri, Ms. Niranjana Singh, Ms. Anil Katiyar, B. Krishna Prasad, P.H.
Parekh, E.R. Kumar, Lalit Chauhan, Ms. Ranjita Rohatgi and Raj iv Nanda
for the appearing parties.

     The Judgment of the CoUii was delivered by                         H
    230                 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A         RAJENDRA BABU, CJ. :

    WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 132 OF 1995

           This petition stems from a policy decision made by Maharashtra
B State Government whereby Marathi language study was made compulsory
    throughout the schools in that State. As a result, the English Medium
    Schools run by Gujarati linguistic minorities were compelled to teach four
    languages (Hindi, English, Marathi and mother tongue-Gujarati) as against
    the accepted 'three-language formula'. Constitutional validity of the
C   imposition of Marathi language as a compulsory study in schools run by
    linguistic minorities is the main matter for judgment in this case.

           Petitioner's case is that the imposition of compulsory Marathi is in
  violation of the fundamental right of the linguistic minority to establish an
  educational institution of 'their choice' under Article 30(1) of the
D Constitution; that the 'choice' is meant to achieve not only the purpose of
  conserving the minority's mother tongue, language etc. but also giving
  their children a good general education; that the minority, in furtherance
  of their fundamental right under Article 29(1) read with Article 30(1) of
  the Constitution has a choice to teach the other subjects (Maths, Science
E etc.) through such medium-mother tongue, Hindi or English-as commends
  to it and correspondingly a 'negative choice' not to teach such subjects in
  any such medium that does not commend to its perception of good general
  education; that the imposition of regional language is violative of the
  minority right to conserve its own language, script and culture and it has
F 110 constitutional duty or obligation io learn or promote the regional
   language; that the minority has a right and 'choice' to avoid the regional
   language if it feels that the same might conflict with their 'conservation'
  of mother tongue and I or promotion or learning of Hindi and English by
   its students; that the only power of State vis-a-vis a minority educational
   institution is to make reasonable regulations to prevent its maladministration;
G that not even national 0r public interest or any State necessity can justify
  or legitimize any encroachment on the fundamental rights of a minority
  guaranteed under Article 30(1 ); that in the matter of syllabi meant for an
  educational institution belonging to a linguistic minority, the State may
  have a power to make regulations for detennining the Standards of
H education in so far as both the languages and the other general subjects
           USHA MEHTA v. STATE [RAJENDRA BABU, CJ.]                    231

are concerned, but the State does not have the power to interfere with the A
language or languages that a linguistic minority has chosen to conserve,
learn, teach and promote either as languages themselves or as the medium
for other general subjects; that under the impugned syllabus circulated by
the Board, the pattern of language studies is radically altered so as to
impose Marathi as a compulsory subject upon non-Marathi speaking B
students studying in English medium schools and in the process, the study
and imparting education in the mother tongue is effectively sacrificed; that
the students studyiµg in recognized English medium schools shall not be
deprived of their right to take a paper of I 00 marks in their mother tongue
and of studying national language (Hindi); that the imposition of Marathi C
as a compulsory language is also violative of Article 19(l)(a) as well as
of Articles 19(1 )(e), (g) and 21 of the Constitution and. is also contrary to
the constitutional scheme and rights envisaged in the various provisions
of Part XVII and Articles 120 and 210 of the Constitution; that the
 impugned educational policy also prevents them from performing the
 fundamental duties under Article 51 A of the Constitution in general and D
clauses (c), (e), (f), (h), and (j), thereof, in particular; that the impugned
policy fails to take into account the linguistic structure and cosmopolitan
character of Bombay region of Maharashtra state, which for historical
reasons stands on a different footing; that the impugned education policy
of the State of Maharashtra discriminates against the students belonging E
to linguistic minority and is arbitrary and discriminatory; that therefore it
 is prayed before us to strike down the impugned decision.

       The State of Maharashtra maintained the stand that the imposition
of Marathi language or asking the schools to follow particular syllabi is F
a matter of State policy; that this position is settled by this Court in English
Medium Students' Parents Association v. State of Karnataka and Others,
[1994) I SCC 550; that the considered policy decision of the State is based
on the recommendations of the Education Commission, the National
Education Policy, the expert opinion of several educationalists and the need
to spread its regional language; that the Writ Petitioners had not considered G
the necessity of teaching Marathi language from the perspective of the need
of the whole State of Maharashtra; that the imposition of Marathi language
is not against the fundamental rights of the citizens, on the contrary the
larger welfare of student community has been kept as the paramount
consideration; that there is no bar to establish a non-Marathi regional H
    232                 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004) SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A language medium school in Maharashtra but Marathi language has also to
  be taught in such schools; that all the States have switched over to making
  their regional language as the compulsory language of study since 1968;
  that the education policies of 1968 and 1986 has been instrumental in the
  process of national integration and the students belonging to different
B linguistic minority groups will be better equipped to get themselves
  assimilated in the culture and life ofpe0ple of Maharashtra; that the mother
  tongue of more than 80% students, whose mother tongue is not English
  and studying in English medium schools is Marathi; that the State has a
  right to determine the policies which help in the development of regional
C language; that the students whose mother tongue is not Marathi in English
  medium schools have the facility of studying their mother tongue as a
  composite subject of 50 marks; that as per the revised pattern of study of
  languages in English medium schools the students are required to study
  three languages- English and Marathi, and the third language either as full
  paper or in composite patters (Hindi I00 marks, or Hindi + one of the
D modern Indian language taught in the State, or Hindi + one classical
  language taught in the State); that therefore they submitted that the policy
  decision taken by the State to make Marathi language a compulsory subject
  is not violative of Articles 29 or 30 or any other provisions of the
  Constitution and prayed to dismiss the Petition.
E
            The deliberation in this case centers on the extent of protection of
    linguistic minority's educational rights guaranteed under Articles 29 and
    30, and the permissible limit of State interference therein. Before going into
    the larger question, it has to be noted that State of Maharashtra has not
F   prevented the Gujarati linguistic minority from teaching Gujarati language
    in their schools. On the other hand they took a policy decision to make
    Marathi language a compulsory module on school syllabi. Thus, the
    question for decision is--can a State impose the teaching of its regional
    language upon the linguistic minorities as a matter of policy?

G           This Court in several cases elaborately considered the limit of
    minority rights under Article 30. Though Article 30 is couched in
    unrestricted terms. this Court pointed out the limits of reasonable regulations
    that could be imposed by the State. In Rev. Sidhajbhai Sabhai v. State of
    Bombay, (1963) 3 SCR 837, while interpreting Article 30, it was observed
H   that:
          USHA MEHTA v. STATE [RAJENDRA BABU, CJ.]                         233

        " ... regulation made in the true interests of efficiency of instruction, A
        discipline, health, sanitation, morality, public order and like may
        undoubtedly be imposed. Such regulations are not restrictions on
        the substance of the right which is guaranteed ... "

       Pertaining to the regulations that could be imposed under Atiicle B
30, it was further observed therein:

        " ... such regulation must satisfy a dual test - the test of
        reasonableness, and the test that it is regulative of the educational
        character of the institution and is conducive to making the
        institution an effective vehicle of education for the minority C
        community or other persons who resort to it..."

     In St. Stephan's College v. University of Delhi, (1992) 1 SCC 558
it was held that:

        " ... so long as the basic right of minorities to manage educational D
        institution is not taken away, the state is competent to make
        regulatory legislation. Regulations, however, shall not have the
        effect of depriving the rights of minorities to educate their
        children in their own institution. That is a privilege which is
        implied in the right conferred by Article 30(1)"....                 E
    Quoting Rev. Sidhajbhai Sabhai with approval, this Court later in
TMA Pai Foundation V. State of Karnataka, (2002) 8 sec 481 held:

        " ...the right under Article 30(1) is not so absolute as to prevent
        the Government from making any regulation whatsoever. As F
        already noted hereinabove, in Sidhajbhai Sabhai case it was laid
        down that regulation made in the true interests of efficiency of
        instruction, discipline, health, sanitation, morality and public
        order could be imposed. If this is so, it is d!fficult to appreciate
        how the Government can be prevented from framing regulations G
        that are in the national interest, as it seems to be indicated in the
        passage quoted hereinabove. Any regulation framed in the national
        interest must necessarily apply to all educational institutions,
        whether run by majority or the minority. Such limitation must
        necessarily be read into Article 30. The right under Article 30(1) H
    234                SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2004] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A            cannot be such as to override the national interest or to prevent
             the Government from framing regulations in that behalf. It is, of
             course, true that the government regulations cannot destroy the
             minority character of institution or make the right to establish and
             administer a mere illusion: but the right under Article 30 is not
             so absolute as to be above law ... "
B
             " ... regulations made by the authority should not impinge upon the
             minority character of the institution. Therefore, a balance has to
             be kept between two objectives-that of ensuring the standard of
             excellence of the institution, and that of preserving the rights of
c            the minorities to establish and administer their educational
             institutions. Regulations that embraced and reconciled the two
             objectives could be considered to be reasonable. This in our view,
             is the correct approach to the problem .. .''

D         In TMA Pai, this Court c:oncluded the position regarding the minority
    rights under Article 30 as under :

             " ... The right under Article 30(\) has, therefore, not been held to
             be absolute or above other provisions of law, and we reiterate the
             same. By the same analogy, there is no reason why regulations
E            or conditions concerning, generally the welfare of students and
             teachers should not be made applicable in order to provide a
             proper academic atmosphere, as such provisions do not in any
             way interfere with the right of administration or management
             under Article 30(1 )... ''
F
             ''In other words, the essence of Article 30( I) is to ensure equal
             treatment between the majority and the minority institutions. No
             one type or category of institution should be disfavoured or, for
             that maner, receive more favourable treatment than another. Laws
             of the land, including rules and regulations, must apply equally
G            to the majority institutions as well as to the minority institutions.
             The minority institutions must be allowed to do what the non-
             minority institutions are permitted to do ... •·

        In the light of the above-discussed cases, it is clear that the State can
H   impose reasonable regulations on the institutions covering Article 30 for
           USHA MEHTA v. STATE [RAJENDRA BABU, CJ.]                    235

protecting the larger interest of the State and the nation. The 'choice' that A
could be exercised by the minority community or group is subject to such
reasonable regulations imposed by the State. While imposing regulations,
the State shall be cautious not to destroy the minority character of
institutions. It is not the case of Petitioners herein that the Respondents
prevented them from teaching Gujarati language. On the other hand they B
are only challenging the compulsory imposition of Marathi language for
students and asking for a right 'not to learn' Marathi language while living
in the State of Maharashtra. The regulation in this case imposed by the State
of Maharashtra upon the linguistic minority right is to make Marathi
language a compulsory course in school syllabi. The issue for resolution C
here is to find whether this action is reasonable or not. The impugned
policy decision was taken by keeping the larger interest of the State,
because the official and common business is carried on in that State in
Marathi language. A proper understanding of Marathi language is necessary
for easily carrying out the day-to-day affairs of the people living in the
State of Maharashtra and also for proper canying out of daily administration. D
Hence the regulation imposed by the State of Maharashtra upon the
linguistic minorities to teach its regional language is only a reasonable one.
This Court ruled that the right of minorities to establish and administer
educational institutions of 'their choice' under Article 30(1) read with
Article 29(1) would include the right to have choice of medium instruction. E
(See generally the Constitution Bench decisions in DAV College, Bhatinda
v. State of Punjab, [1971] 2 SCC 261 and DAV College v. State of Punjab,
[1971] 2 SCC 269. But this exercise of 'choice' of instructive language
in schools by the linguistic minorities is subject to the reasonable regulation
imposed by the concerned State. A particular State can validly take a policy F
decision to compulsorily teach its regional language. (See also English
Medium Students' Parents Association case - Cited supra). In our
opinion, the impugned decision taken by the Government of Maharashtra
is within the regulatory ambit of Article 30. It is a reasonable one, which
is conducive to the needs and larger interest of State.
                                                                             G
        It is difficult to accept the proposition advanced by the Petitioners
that minority character would only be protected by learning Gujarati as a
First or Second language. There is enough opportunity, in the impugned
school syllabi, for students in English medium school run by Gujarati
minority group to offer Gujarati language as a composite subject. Students H
    236                SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A who want to learn Gujarati language can certainly learn it even according
  to the present scheme in English medium schools. It is also open to the
  Gujarati minority community to run exclusive Gujarat medium schools
  subject to the regulation of teaching Marathi language. But it won't be in
  the fitness of things to establish English medium schools and asking for
B not teaching the regional Marathi language. It is difficult to read Articles
    29 and 30 in such a way that it contains the negative right to exclude the
    learning of regional language. Ipso facto it is not possible to accept the
  proposition that the people living in a particular State cannot be asked to
  study the regional language. While living in a different State, it is only
C appropriate for the linguistic minority to learn the regional language. In our
  view the resistance to learn the regional language will lead to alienation
  from mainstream of life resulting in linguistic fragmentation within the
  State, which is an anathema to national integration. The learning of
  different languages will definitely bridge the cultural barriers and will
  positively contribute to the cultural integration of the country. In our view,
D the impugned·policy decision is in the paramount interest of the students
  who are Jiving in the State of Maharashtra and also in the larger interest
  of the country. Therefore, we cannot rule that the impugned policy will
  result in destroying the minority character of the Gujarati coml11llnity in
  Maharashtra.

         We may also notice one other aspect of the matter. In The State of
    Bombay v. Bombay Education Society and Others, [1955] 1 SCR 568 the
  position was settled that the language of Article 29(2) is wide and
  unqualified so as to cover both majority and minority group within its
F ambit. In Bombay Education Society, the impugned order denied admission
  to all pupils whose mother tongue was not English in English medium
  schools. Because the right to admission into an educational institution is
  a right that an individual citizen has, as a citizen and not as a member of
  any community or class of citizens. The right of minority to establish and
  maintain educational institutions of their choice· is a necessary concomitant
G to the right to conserve its distinctive language, script or culture. But this
  right is subject to Article 29(2). So if we allow the Petitioners to exclude
  the teaching of Marathi in their schools, then the right of a student whose
  mother tongue is Marathi will be denied opportunity to learn his mother
  tongue &nd regional language as well as right to admission to a chosen
H school in the State of his origin for his non-proximit) to Gujarat language.
           USHA MEHTA v. STATE [RAJENDRA BABU, CJ.]                    237

        The impugned circular wherein the compulsory imposition of A
Marathi language was made on all non-Marathi medium schools directed
the authorities to start teaching Marathi language from Class V onwards.
Hence the children at the tender age are not burdened to learn an additional
language. They could very well learn in their mother tongue. According
to the accepted 'three-language formula' the new language could only be B
taught from class V. On this count also the impugned policy cannot be
found fault with. The Bombay city I region is now within the territorial
limits of State of Maharashtra therefore, it is not necessary to look into this
matter from the perspective of original State of Bombay when the State
and city of Bombay was treated as a bilingual nor advert to reorganization C
details or number of Gujarati speaking population in that region.

        For the foregoing reasons we hold that the impugned policy decision
is not violative of the linguistic minority rights guaranteed under Articles
29 and 30 or any other provisions of the Constitution. Hence, this petition
stands dismissed.                                                            D

CA. No. 169511997 and CA. 821411995

     In the light of the decision we have reached in W.P. No. 132of1995
and for the reasons set forth therein, C.A. No. 1695/1997 and C.A. 8214/ E
1995 shall stand dismissed.

B.B.B.                                        Petition/Appeals disr.iissed.