1.

Is the Indhi Language Implementation Act, 2019 violative of fundamental rights of

the citizens and amounts to discrimination on the basis of language?

[¶1] It is submitted that the Indhi Language Implementation Act, 2019 is not in violation of
fundamental rights of the citizens and does not amounts to discrimination on the basis of
language. The respondent seeks to establish that, (A) it is in consonance with Article 14, (B)
it is not in violation of Article 19 (1) (a), and (C) it is not in violation of Article 29 & 30.

(A) It is in consonance with Article 14

[¶2] In Indira Sawhney v. Union of India 1,it was held that “Equality is one of the magnificent
corner-stones of Indian Democracy”. Any inequality in order to be unconstitutional must be
actually and palpably unreasonable and arbitrary.2 What was required in such cases, he wrote,
was that classification must be “based on an intelligible principle having a reasonable relation
to object which legislature seeks to attain.” 3 It is not obnoxious and is not open to charge of
denial of equal protection on ground that it has no application to other persons. 4 It is humbly
submitted that Art. 14 deny equal protection only when there is no reasonable basis for
differentiation.5

[¶3] In casu, The objective behind the policy of national language was to generate a national
uniqueness and to smooth the progress of national integration and to bring the country
together through the use of the national language. Garvin defines that: “the standard language
serves to unify a larger speech community in spite of dialect differences; it serves to separate
it from another language; it bestows prestige upon the speech community that has been able
to develop one.” Thus we should make efforts for imposition of One Nation One Language.

(B) It is not in violation of Article 19 (1) (a)

1
Indira Sawhney v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1993 S.C. 477 (India).; Re special Reference Number 1, (2012) 10
S.C.C. 1 (India).
2
Chiranjit Lal Chwodhury v. UOI, A.I.R. 1951 S.C. 41 (India).; T Devadasan v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1964
S.C. 179 (India)
3
P.P. Enterprises v. Union of India, (1998) 4 S.C.C. 409 (India).
4
State of Bombay v. F.N. Balsara, A.I.R. 1951 S.C. 318 (India).
5
Ameeroonisa Begum v. Mehboob Begum, A.I.R. 1953 S.C. 91 (India).; Babulal Ahmtalal Mehta v. Collector of
Customs, Calcutta, A.I.R. 1957 S.C. 877 (India).; Ashoka Smokeless Coal India (P.) Ltd v. UOI, (2007) 2
S.C.C. 640 (India).
[¶4] It is submitted that Art. 19 of the Constitution is not absolute, 6 and reasonable
restrictions can be placed7 in interest of general public.8 The reasonableness of the restraint
would have to be judged by the magnitude of the evil it seeks to restrain, curb or eliminate. 9 It
was further held that the right of expression conferred under Article 19(1) (a) of the
Constitution cannot be extended to the conferment of right on a citizen to read and study in a
particular language that he wants. The right of expression has a different meaning and is not
open for being adopted in the language other than that which is medium of instructions in the
institution where admission is sought.10

(C) It is not in violation of Article 29 & 30

[¶5] The right conferred on religious and linguistic minorities to administer educational
institutions of their choice, though couched in absolute terms, is not free from regulation. 11
Article 29 does not permit a legal right on the members belonging to other communities to
freely profess, practise and propagate their religion within the precincts of a college run by a
minority community.12

2. Is Temil Language Implementation Act, 2019 ultra vires the Constitution?

[¶6] It is humbly contended that the Temil Language Implementation Act is ultra vires the
Constitution. The Respondent seeks to establish that; (A) The Act violates Principle of
Equality which is Basic Structure of Constitution, (B) The Act didn’t pass the prism of
Article 14 of the Constitution, (C) The Act is Ultra vires in nature, (D) The Act is Redundant
and Otiose and (E) The Act is in violation of procedure established by law.

(A) The Act violates Principle of Equality which is Basic Structure of Constitution

[¶7] Article 14 of the Constitution guarantee every person ‘equality before law’ and ‘equal
protection of laws.’13 Article 14 is based on Rule of Law and Equality before law. 14 Right to
Equality is the basic structure of the constitution 15 and Parliament cannot transgress principle

6
Justice K. S. Puttuswamy and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., (2017) 10 S.C.C. 1 (India).
7
State of Kerala v. Peoples Union for Civil Liberties, 2014 C.D.J. S.C. 831 (India).
8
Indian Const. art. 19, cl. 5.
9
Collector of Customs v. Sampathu Chettty, A.I.R. 1963 S.C. 316 (India).
10
Sunil Kr. Sahastra Budhey v. Director, IIT, Kanpur, A.I.R 1982 All. 65 (India).
11
4 VN Shukla, Constitutional Law 291 (13th ed. 2020).
12
Sajib chowdhury v. Paul college, A.I.R. 1957 Cal 524 (India).
13
Himachal Road Transport Corporation v. Dinesh Kumar, (1996) 4 S.C.C. 560 (India).; Hindustan Aeronautics
Ltd. v. A. Radhika Thirumalai, (1996) 6 S.C.C. 394 (India).
14
M. Nagaraj v. Union of India, (2006) 8 S.C.C. 212 (India).
15
M.G. Badappanavar v. State of Karnataka, (2001) 2 S.C.C. 666 (India).
of Equality.16 It was stated by Supreme Court in Kathi Raning Rawat v State of
Saurashtra17that the term 'discrimination' has been understood to mean to have an element of
unfavourable bias. In Yick Wo v. Hopkins,18 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that when an act,
even though fair, is administered by public authorities in an “unequal” and “oppressive
manner” amounts to a denial of equal protection of law to the people by the state.

(B) The Act didn’t pass the prism of Article 14 of the Constitution

[¶8] Reliance may be placed on Kangshari Haldar v. State of West Bengal wherein
Gajendragadkar, J. has held that if either of two criteria are not satisfied then the act is liable
to be struck down as unconstitutional. 19In Royappa v State of Tamil Nadu20 and Maneka
Gandhi v Union of India21where Courts have held that Art. 14 strikes at arbitrariness22 in state
action and ensures fairness and equality of treatment.

(C) The Act is Ultra vires in nature

[¶9] Further, in P. Janardhan v. Union of India23 the Court said that “Term ultra vires simply
means beyond the power or lack of power. An act is said to be ultra vires when it is excess of
the power of the person or authority doing it.”The provisions relating to language make no
reference to education and the medium of instruction, but the co-ordination and determination
of standards of higher education is a topic of exclusive parliamentary legislation and since
3.1.76 entry 25 in List III makes education a subject of concurrent legislation, (Entry 25, List
III: Education, including technical education, medical education and universities, subject to
the provisions of Entries 63, 64, 65 and 66 of List I; vocational and technical training of
labour) and the Sup. Ct. has already held that the imposition of a regional language as a
compulsory medium of instruction is beyond the powers of the State legislatures.24

[¶10] Where a statute confers a power on an authority to decide matters without laying down
any guidelines, principles or norms, the power has to be struck down as being arbitrary and
16
Kesavananda Bharati v State of Kerala, (1973) 4 S.C.C. 225 (India).
17
Kathi Raning Rawat v. State of Saurashtra, (1952) S.C.C. 123 (India).
18
Yick Wo v. Hopkins, (1886) 118 U.S. 356; See also, Deepak Sibal &Ors. v. Punjab University, (1989) S.C.C.
903 (India).
19
Kangshari Haldar v. State of West Bengal, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 457 (India).
20
Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu, A.I.R. 1974 S.C. 555 (India).
21
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, A.I.R 1978 S.C. 597 (India).
22
Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1982 S.C. 1336(India).; Soma Chakravorthy v. C.B.I., (2007) 5
S.C.C. 403, 411 (India).
23
P. Janardhan v. UOI, A.I.R. 1970 Mysore 171 (India).; See also, Anand Prakash v. Asst. Registrar, A.I.R.
1968 All 22 (India).
24
Gujarat University v. Krishan Raghunath Mudholkar, (1963) Supp. 1 S.C.R. 112 (India).
unreasonable.25 Excessive delegation may result in subversion of the democratic premise of
the Constitution.26

(D) The Act is Redundant and Otiose

[¶11] In a matter relating to a direction issued for writing answers in English only came up
for challenge before a learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Balraj
Misra and Another v. Hon'ble Chief Justice of High Court, Allahabad and Others.27 The
Court drew a delicate balance but at the same time emphasized on the constitutional vision to
promote Hindi as a language. In a decision Union of India v. Murasoli Maran,28 the Supreme
Court held that these articles deal with the process of transition to Hindi for all official
purposes of Union. The ultimate aim is provided in Article 351 viz., spread and development
of Hindi language and enrichment of composite culture of India. Certain anti-Hindi activities
were held to be violative of Article 351.29

(E) The Act is in violation of procedure established by law

[¶12] It is submitted that colourable legislation means what cannot be done directly cannot be
done indirectly. This doctrine doesn’t take into consideration mala fide or bona fide intention
on the part of the legislation. 30 It has been held by the hon’ble court in the case of K.C.
Gajapati Narayana Deo v. State of Orissa31that the legislature has to legislate under the limits
of its constitutional powers. It cannot transgress the powers indirectly or directly.

3. Does Parliament have the power to impose any one language throughout the nation?

[¶13] It is submitted that the Parliament have the power to impose any one language
throughout the nation. The respondent seeks to establish that, (A) under Article 351

25
Air India v. NergeshMeerza, A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 1829 (India).
26
D.C.Wadhwa v. State of Bihar, A.I.R. 1987 S.C. 579 (India).
27
Balraj Misra and another v. Hon'ble Chief Justice of High Court, Allahabad and Others, (2000) A.W.C. 296
(India).
28
Union of India v. Murasoli Maran, A.I.R. 1977 S.C. 225 (India).
29
R.R. Dalavai v. State of Tamil Nadu, A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 1559 (India).; Union of India v. Murasoli Maran,
A.I.R. 1977 S.C. 225 (India).
30
R.S. Joshi v. Ajit Mills, Ahmedabad, A.I.R. 1977 S.C. 2279 (India).
31
K.C. Gajapati Narayana Deo v. State of Orissa, A.I.R. 1953 S.C. 375 (India).; Gullapalli Negeswara Rao v.
A.P. State R.T.C., A.I.R. 1959 S.C. 308, 316 (India).; K. Kunhikoman v. State of Kerala, A.I.R. 1962 S.C. 23
(India).; Jayvantsinghji v. State of Gujarat, A.I.R. 1962 S.C. 821 (India).; Jalan Trading Co v. Mill Mazdoor
Sabha, A.I.R. 1967 S.C. 691 (India).; Jabalpur Bus Operators’ Ass. v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1994 MP 62
(India).
parliament is duly empowered to impose hindi throughout the nation, (B) it is in accordance
with unity in diversity.

(A) Under Article 351 parliament is duly empowered to impose hindi throughout the
nation

[¶14] It is humbly submitted that article 351 of the Constitution says that it shall be the duty
of the Union Government to promote the spread of the Hindi language to develop so that it
may serve as a medium of expression for all the elements of the composite culture of our
country.32 Under Article 343 of the Constitution Hindi shall be the official language of the
Union.33 Therefore, if the language becomes a barrier in understanding the people’s aspiration
and need then the administrative machinery will not be able deliver efficiently. For example
if in India there is Hindi as common language then Indi have its own unique identity globally
that Hindi language belongs to India only. But unfortunately in real, the present circumstance
of India represents “Diversity in Unity instead of Unity in Diversity”.

(B) It is in accordance with unity in diversity

[¶15] Our Constitution contemplates a meaningful orchestration of federalism and democracy

to put in place an egalitarian social order, a classical unity in a contemporaneous diversity
and a pluralistic milieu in eventual cohesiveness without losing identity. Sincere attempts
should be made to give full-fledged effect to both these concepts.34

4. Can the State decide the medium of instruction for the children at the early age of
education? What can be considered as mother tongue?

[¶16] It is humbly contended that the State cannot decide the medium of instruction for the
children at the early age of Education and Native Language can be considered as Mother
Tongue. The Respondent seeks to establish that; (A)Deciding Medium of Instruction is
outside the legislative competence of the State Legislatures, (B) The right to choose a
medium of instruction is a fundamental Right of the Child and (C) The Native Language can
be considered as Mother Tongue.

32
R.R. Dalavai v. The State of Tamil Nadu, A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 70 (India).
33
Amaresh Kumar v. Lakshmibai National College of Physical Education, Gwalior , (1996) S.C.C. MP 11
(India).
34
Government of NCT of Delhi vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors., A.I.R. 2018 S.C. 680 (India).
 (A) Deciding Medium of Instruction is outside the legislative competence of the State
Legislatures

[¶17] The meaning and import of the provisions of an Act have to be enquired into in order to
determine its scope.35 The scope of a parliamentary statute must not fall within the ambit of
legislative fields enumerated in List II.36 In Prof Yashpal & Anr. v. State of Chhatisgarh
&Ors.,37 it was held that despite ‘university’ being a subject-matter within the State List, the
power to legislate with regard to educational standards vested with the Parliament.

(B) The right to choose a medium of instruction is a fundamental Right of the Child

[¶18] The right to choose a medium of instruction is derived from Article 19(1)(a). 38 The
right to receive information and the right to know is a counterpart of the right to disseminate
information.39 The Courts have stretched the ambit of Article 19(1)(a) and have held that the
freedom of speech includes the freedom of propagation of ideas, 40 the freedom to circulate
ideas and publish one’s views.41

[¶19] The right of a student or parent to choose a medium of instruction in primary education
was finally juxtaposed with the judgement in D.A.V. College42and the case of State of
Karnatakaand Anr. v. Associated Management of (Government Recognised-Unaided-English
Medium) Primary and Secondary Schools and Ors.43In the same case, Article 19(1) (g)
underwent a metamorphosed interpretation from T.M.A. Pai.44 In paragraph 38, the Court
stated that the word ‘freedom’ along with the word ‘any’ before the word ‘occupation’ in
Article 19(1)(g) includes the right of a citizen to impart education in a medium of instruction
of his choice, subject to the reasonable regulations under Article 19(6).

[¶20] This Court has held in Unni Krishnan, J.P. & Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh &
Ors.,45that the right to education of a child up to the age of 14 years is part of the right to life
35
Orissa Cement Ltd. v. State of Orissa, A.I.R. 1991 S.C. 1676 (India).
36
Naga People’s Movement of Human Rights v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1998 S.C. 431 (India).
37
Yashpal & Anr. v. State of Chhatisgarh & Ors., A.I.R. 2005 S.C. 2026 (India).
38
INDIA CONST. art. 19 (1)(a)
39
R.P. Ltd v. Indian Express, A.I.R. 1989 S.C. 190 (India).; Indian Express v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1986 S.C.
515 (India).; Gupta v. President, A.I.R. 1982 S.C. 149 (India).
40
Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras, A.I.R 1950 .S.C 124 (India).
41
Sakal Papers (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1962 S.C. 305 (India).
42
D.A.V. College v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1971 S.C. 1731 (India).
43
State of Karnatakaand Anr. v. Associated Management of (Government Recognised-Unaided-English
Medium) Primary and Secondary Schools and Ors., A.I.R. 2013 S.C. 65 (India).
44
T.M.A. Pai Foundation and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Ors., A.I.R. 2003 S.C. 355 (India).
45
Unni Krishnan, J.P. & Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., (1993) 1 S.C.C 645 (India).
under Article 21 of the Constitution and, therefore, the High Court was right in coming to the
conclusion that the right to be educated in the medium of instruction of the choice of the child
is also part of the right under Article 21 of the Constitution.

(C) The Native Language can be considered as Mother Tongue

[¶21]The term “mother tongue” was used by Catholic monks so as to articulate the
languagethey used rather than Latin, while “speaking from the pulpit”. 46 “Mother tongue” is
one’s native language47 and a ‘native language’ is defined as the first language a person learns
to speak,48 which he is born into and has grown up speaking. 49 It is also the language of the
community.50Fasold has given the following meaning to mother tongue51 – “it must be used
in everyday life and it must be spoken fluently and with ease by a sizableproportion of the
population.”

5. Does Parliament have unilateral power to decide medium of transactions by various

Constitutional Institutions including Judiciary?

[¶22]The Respondent’s hereby humbly submit before this Hon’ble Court that The Parliament
has the exclusive authority to make laws and that is how the supremacy of the Parliament in
the field of legislation.52 Your Lordship to that extent the Respondent’s would establish that
(A) the decision of Union is taken in purview of to strive balance for promotion of traditional
language jargon and minorities language; (B) The decision of Union is part of a Policy
Making which cannot be accepted to be challenged in the Court and (C) Parliament has
unilateral power to decide medium of transaction for various Constitutional Institutions.

(A) The decision of Union is taken in purview of to strive balance for promotion of
traditional language jargon and minorities language

46
Bandyopadhyay, Debaprasad, Mother Tongue Syndrome: From Breast to Bottle, STUDIES IN
SOCIOLINGUISTICS AND APPLIED LINGUISTICS, pp. 87-106, R. Kumar, ed., Booklinks, (2001).
47
M. Ben H. Rampton, Displacing the ‘native speaker’: Expertise, affiliation, and inheritance, 44.2 ELT J 97
(1990).
48
Id. See also David Atkinson, The mother tongue in the classroom: A neglected resource 44.1 ELT J 241
(1987).
49
Love, Nigel, and Umberto Ansaldo, The Native Speaker and the Mother Tongue 32.6 Language Sciences 589
(2010).
50
D.P. Pattanayak, Mother Tongues: The Problem of Definition and the Educational Challenge, Towards A
Multilingual Culture of Education, UNESCO (2019).
51
RALPH FASOLD, THE SOCIOLINGUISTICS OF SOCIETY Vol. 1. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, (1984).
52
His Holiness Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru v. State of Kerala and another, A.I.R. 1973 S.C. 1461
(India).
[¶23]Your Lordship, Article 351 of the Constitution, which casts a duty on the Union : “to
promote the spread of Hindi language to develop it so that it may serve as a medium of
expression for all the elements of the composite culture of India and to secure its enrichment
by assimilating without interfering with its genus, the forms, style and expression, used in
Hindustani and in the other languages of India specified in the Eighth Schedule, and by
drawing, wherever necessary or desirable, for its vocabulary, primarily on Sanskrit and
secondarily on other languages.” The responsibility of Union is not only limited to
progression of a singular language but also to strike a balance between the traditional
language and minority language and culture.53

(B) The promotion of Indhi language is part of a Policy Making which cannot be
accepted to be challenged in the Court.

[¶24]Your lordship, the policy decision must be left to the Government as it alone can decide
which policy should be adopted after considering all relevant aspects from different
angles.54In matter of policy decisions or exercise of discretion by the Government so long as
the infringement of fundamental right is not shown, Courts will have no occasion to interfere
and the Court will not and should not substitute its own judgment for the judgment of the
executive in such matters.55 In assessing the propriety of a decision of the government the
Court cannot interfere even if a second view is possible from that of the Government.56

(C) Parliament has unilateral power to decide medium of transaction for various
Constitutional Institutions.

[¶25] “If the unity of the judicial administration, and of the Bench and the Bar is to be
preserved. It is to be hoped that such permission will not be given. Entry 78, List I expressly
confers on Parliament the power to legislate in respect of persons entitled to practise before
the High Courts. The act therefore clearly states that before 1965 Indhi is to be used in
addition to English but after 1965 English is to be used in addition to Indhi. 57Hence, the Act
must be declared as constitutionally valid and under the competence of Parliament as it is as

53
Islamic Academy of Education and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Ors., A.I.R. 2003 S.C. 3724(India).
54
Usha Mehta and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., (2004) 2 U.J. 1399 (India).
55
Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record-Association and Ors. v. Union of India, (2015) 11 SCALE 1 (India).
56
Small Scale Industrial Manufactures Association v. Union of India (UOI) and Ors., (2021) 2 R.C.R. 657
(India).
57
Committee of Parliament on Official Language by Government of India (2021).
per the constitutional norms of legislative formulation and also in accordance to unfettered
Fundamental Rights.