1.

IS THE INDHI LANGUAGE IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 2019 VIOLATIVE OF

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE CITIZENS AND AMOUNTS TO
DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF LANGUAGE?

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

In Indira Sawhney v. Union of India1,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 A 5-judge bench of this Hon’ble Court in
R. C. Poudyal v. Union of India3has held that:“Para 130. In State of M.P. v. Bhopal Sugar
Industries Ltd.,4 this Court said: “The Legislature has always power to make special laws to
attain particular objects and for that purpose has authority to select or classify persons,
objects or transactions upon which law is intended to operate.5

In several cases, this Court has invoked Chief Justice Patanjali Sastri’s words that Art. 14
does not require that classification brought about by legislation be “scientifically perfect or
logically complete”.6 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.”7 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.8 It is humbly submitted that Art. 14 denies
equal protection only when there is no reasonable basis for differentiation.9

1
Indira Sawhney v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1993 S.C. 477 (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
R. C. Poudyal v. Union of India, (1994) 1 S.C.C. 324 (India).
4
State of M.P. v. Bhopal Sugar Industries Ltd., (1964) 6 S.C.R. 846 (India).; In Re the Special Courts Bill,
(1979) 1 S.C.C. 380 (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).; Gopi Chand v. Delhi Administration, A.I.R. 1959 S.C. 609
(India).; H.P. Gupta v. Union of India, (2002) 10 S.C.C. 658 (India).
6
Kedar Nath Bajoria v. State of West Bengal, A.I.R. 1953 S.C. 404 (India)., Welfare Association v. Ranjit P.
Gohil, (2003) 9 S.C.C. 358 (India).; Dharam Dutt v. Union of India, (2004) 1 S.C.C. 712 (India).
7
P.P. Enterprises v. Union of India, (1998) 4 S.C.C. 409 (India).
8
State of Bombay v. F.N. Balsara, A.I.R. 1951 S.C. 318 (India).
9
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).
In a landmark case, there was an option given to use Hindi as medium to answer General
English paper in the departmental examination. Subsequently, the option was withdrawn as it
did not yield satisfactory results. It was held that the policy decision taken by the Government
did not contravene Articles 351, 14 or 16 of the Constitution of India.10

(i)It is not Arbitrary and Unreasonable

The restriction imposed was not unreasonable as mere fact that some hardship or injustice is
caused to someone is no ground to strike down the rule as unconstitutional. 11 Further
Supreme Court has observed recently in K. Thimmappa v. Chairman, Central Board of
Directors,12 that mere differentiation does not per se amount to discrimination and to attract
operation of equal protection clause, it is necessary to show that the selection is unreasonable
or arbitrary and for that existing circumstances at time of taking decision had to be
examined.13

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. It
is equally presumed that legislature is aware of general principles of law and didn’t intent to
overthrow fundamental legal principle, in absence of a contrary intention in unmistakable
terms.14 In Instant Case, Presumption of Constitutionality applies.

It is further contended that for common identity for India it is very important that there is one
language to represent one nation in the world. It gives us great advantage at global level as
India have huge population so, due to its large number of users, forcing people of other nation
to learn that particular language in order to engage with India in trade, education and business
etc.

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

10
Ajai Kumar v. Union of India and others, (1990) S.C.C. 84 (India).
11
AP Cooperative Oil Seeds Federation Limited v. D Achyuta Rao, (2007) 13 S.C.C. 320 (India).
12
K. Thimmappa v. Chairman, Central Board of Directors, A.I.R. 2001 S.C. 467 (India).; Union of India v. M.V.
Valliappan, (1996) 6 S.C.C. 259 (India).
13
Chabungam Ibohal Singh v. Union of India, (1995) 2 S.C.C. 83 (India).
14
Graham v. Van Wyck, 14 Barb 53 (1852).; Glanrock Estate (P) Ltd. v. State of T.N., (2010) 10 S.C.C. 96
(India).
It is submitted that Art. 19 of the Constitution is not absolute, 15 and reasonable restrictions
can be placed16 in interest of general public.17 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.18

(i) Restriction under Article 19(6) is Reasonable

Perhaps the best exposition of what the expression "reasonable restriction" connotes was laid
down in Chintamanrao v. State of M.P.,19 as follows: The word "reasonable" implies
intelligent care and deliberation, that is, the choice of a course which reason dictates.
Legislation which arbitrarily or excessively invades the right cannot be said to contain the
quality of reasonableness and unless it strikes a proper balance freedom guaranteed in article
19(1)(a) and social control permitted by clause (2) of article 19, it must be held to be wanting
in that quality."

In arguendo, for the creation of knowledge and creating public sphere it is the need of the
hour as we see that the mostly students evading to move towards other places for their studies
and other research work due to deficient understanding of different local languages spoken
within the nation. Therefore, a uniform language which will be spoken and understood by
everyone will be the best language to become the lingua franca of the nation.

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

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. 20
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.21

15
Justice K. S. Puttuswamy and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., (2017) 10 S.C.C. 1 (India).
16
State of Kerala v. Peoples Union for Civil Liberties, C.D.J. 2014 S.C.831 (India).
17
INDIA CONST. art. 19, cl. 5.
18
Sunil Kr. Sahastra Budhey v. Director, IIT, Kanpur, A.I.R. 1982 All. 3012 (India).
19
Chintamanrao v. State of M.P., (1950) S.C.R.759 (India).
20
VN Shukla. Constitutional Law 291 (2019).
21
Sajib chowdhury v. St. Paul college, A.I.R. 1957 Cal 524 (India).
In case, for the unity among the people of India it is the need of the hour as in India around
43.63% of the total population speaks Hindi. So, if the Hindi language becomes the national
language then it will unite people belongs to different parts of India. Because India includes
different States where the people speaks their own regional language such as in the state of
Andhra Pradesh people speaks Telugu, in Kerala people speaks Malayalam, in Tamil Nadu
people speaks Tamil and in West Bengal people speaks Bengali etc. As the language is the
road map of a culture. It tells you where its people come from and where they are going.22

Hence due to the influence of foreign language most of the Indian language losing their
inherent culture of communication or talking common tongue, which cause negative impact
on Indian linguistic culture so, it must be declare constitutional in nature.

2. IS TEMIL LANGUAGE IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 2019 ULTRA VIRES THE

CONSTITUTION?

[¶1] 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 as(i) It is Constitutionally immoral, (B) The
Act didn’t pass the prism of Article 14 of the Constitution as (i) It does not satisfy the
reasonable classification test as (a) It is not in consonance with Doctrine of Proportionality,
(C) The Act is Ultravires in nature, (D) The Act is Redundant and Otiose as (i) The Act goes
against constitutional vision to promote Hindi as a language and (ii) The pith and substance
of the impugned act is ‘language’ and (E) The Act is in violation of procedure established by
law as (i) It is a piece of Colorable Legislation.

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

[¶24] Article 14 of the Constitution guarantee every person ‘equality before law’ and ‘equal
protection of laws.’23 Article 14 is based on Rule of Law and Equality before law. 24 Right to
Equality is the basic structure of the constitution 25 and Parliament cannot transgress principle
of Equality.26 The Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down the basic structure theory, which
states that any law in violation of the basic structure of the constitution is unconstitutional.

22
Rita Mae Brown, The New Property, 73 YALE L.J. 733, 737-38 (1964).
23
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).
24
M. Nagaraj v. Union of India, (2006) 8 S.C.C. 212 (India).
25
M.G. Badappanavar v. State of Karnataka, (2001) 2 S.C.C. 666 (India).
26
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, (1973) 4 S.C.C. 225 (India).
 (i) It is constitutionally immoral

[¶26] In NCT of Delhi v. UOI and Ors.,27 Dipak Misra, CJI observed: “Constitutional
morality, appositely understood, means the morality that has inherent elements in the
constitutional norms and the conscience of the Constitution. If the law arbitrarily selects one
individual or class of individuals, one corporation or class of corporations and imposes a
penalty upon them, which is not imposed upon others guilty of same delinquency it would be
a bad law.28In Casu, the Act is constitutionally immoral as it discriminates on basis of
language.29

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

[¶27] The Supreme Court in Dalmia case30and Navtej Singh Johar vs. Union of India 31points
out that reasonable classification must satisfy two conditions; (1) it must be founded on an
intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from
others left out of the group and (2) differentia must have a rational relation to the object
sought to be achieved by the statute in question. 32 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.33

(i) It does not satisfy the reasonable classification test

[¶28] If the policy and the discretion is unguided, then discretion can be held to be arbitrary. 34
The Supreme Court in Smt. Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani 35, quoting Lewis Mayers, stated
that “to strike the balance between the needs of law enforcement on the one hand and the
protection of the citizen from oppression and injustice at the hands of the law-enforcement
machinery on the other is a perennial problem of statecraft.” Intelligible differentia
encompasses within its scope whether the classification is rational and is capable of being

27
NCT of Delhi v. Union of India and others, (2019) S.C.C. 193 (India).
28
John Vallamonttom v. Union of India (2003) 6 S.C.C. 611 (India).
29
Moot Proposition; page 3
30
S.I.S. Mills Assn. v. Union (1972) A.A.P. 75 (India).
31
Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, (2018) 10 S.C.C. 1 (India).
32
Anwar Ali Sarkar v. The State of West Bengal (1952) S.C.R. 340 (India).; Om Prakash v. J&K (1981) A.S.C.
1001 (India).; D.D. Joshi v. Union (1983) A.S.C. 420 (India).
33
Kangshari Haldar v. State of West Bengal, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 457 (India).
34
Satwant Singh Sawhney v. D. Ramarathnam and Ors., A.I.R. 1967 S.C. 1836 (India).
35
Smt. Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani, A.I.R. 1978 S.C. 1025 (India).
understood.36 If there is no rational nexus between classification and object sought it has to be
held unreasonable.37

(a) It is not in consonance with Doctrine of Proportionality

[¶29] In CPIO v. Subhash Chandra Aggarwal38, the meaning of proportionality was

explained as: ...It is also crucial for standard of proportionality to be applied to ensure that
neither right is restricted to a greater extent than necessary to fulfil the legitimate interest of
countervailing interest in question....39 The Supreme Court in Smt. Nandini Satpathy v. P.L.
Dani40, quoting Lewis Mayers, stated that “to strike the balance between the needs of law
enforcement on the one hand and the protection of citizen from oppression and injustice at
hands of law-enforcement machinery on other is a perennial problem of statecraft.”

(C) The Act is Ultravires in nature

[¶34] In P. Janardhan v. Union of India41 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.42

(D) The Act is Redundant and Otiose

Redundancy refers to the fault of introducing superfluous matter into a legal instrument.43 It is
well recognised that while the letter of the law is the body; the sense and reason of the law is

36
K.R. Lakshman v. Karnataka Electricity Board, (2001) 1 S.C.C. 442 (India).; State of Kerela v. N.M. Thomas,
(1976) 2 S.C.C. 310 (India).
37
Deepak Sibal v. Punjab University, (1989) 2 S.C.C. 145 (India).
38
CPIO v. Subhash Chandra Aggarwal, A.I.R. 2019 S.C. 521 (India).
39
R v. Secretary of State for the Environment ex p Nottinghamshire CC, 240 A.C. 249 (1986).; R v. Home
Secretary ex p Brind, 1 A.C. 696 (1991).; Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v. Li, H.C.A. 18 (2013).
40
Smt. Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani, A.I.R. 1978 S.C. 1025 (India).
41
P. Janardhan v. UOI, A.I.R. 1970 Mysore 171 (India).; Anand Prakash v. Asst. Registrar, A.I.R. 1968 All 22
(India).
42
Gujarat University v. Krishan Raghunath Mudholkar, (1963) 1 S.C.R. 112 (India).
43
Henry Campbell Black, BLACK‟S LAW DICTIONARY 1009 (Bryan A. Garner ed., 9th edn., 2009).
its soul. It is not words of law but spirit and eternal sense of it that makes the law
meaningful.44 Legislature cannot be allowed to employ indirect methods to defeat the
constitutional provisions.45

(i) The Act goes against constitutional vision to promote Hindi as a language

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.46 In a
decision Union of India v. Murasoli Maran,47 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 is to spread and development of Hindi language and enrichment of
composite culture of India. [Article 344(6)]. Certain anti-Hindi activities were held to be
violative of Article 351.48

(ii) The pith and substance of the impugned act is ‘language’

(¶22.) Before the Legislation with respect to a subject in one List, and touching also on a
subject in another List, is declared to be bad, the Courts apply the rule of pith and substance. 49
In order to determine whether a particular statute comes within the purview of one legislature
or the other, the pith and substance of the enactment is to be looked into. 50 The relevant
factors which must be considered in order to ascertain the pith and substance of a statute are:
(i) the object and purpose; (ii) the scope and; (iii) the effect of the provisions.51

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

44
University of Calcullta v. Pritam Rooj, (2009) 1 C.H.N. 795 (India).
45
Namit Sharma v. Union of India, (2013) 1 S.C.C. 745 (India).
46
Balraj Misra and Another v. Hon'ble Chief Justice of High Court, Allahabad and Others, (2000) A.W.C. 296
(India).
47
Union of India v. Murasoli Maran, A.I.R. 1977 S.C. 225 (India).
48
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).
49
Citizens Insurance Company v. Parsons, 7 A.C. 96 (1975).; Russell v. The Queen, 7 A.C. 829 (1935).; Att.
Gen for Canada v. Att. Gen. for British Columbia, A.C. 111 (1930).; Att. Gen. for Saskatchewan v. Att. Gen. for
Canada, A.I.R. 1949 P.C. 190 (India).
50
Jamshed N. Guzdar v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., A.I.R. 2005 S.C. 862 (India).; Prafulla Kumar
Mukherjee and others v. Bank of Commerce Ltd., Khulna, A.I.R. 1947 P.C. 60 (India).
51
Offshore Holdings Pvt. Ltd. v. Bangalore Development Authority and Ors., (2011) 3 S.C.C. 139 (India).; A.
S. Krishna v. State of Madras, A.I.R. 1957 S.C. 297 (India).
[¶38] In Menaka Gandhi v. Union of India52 the SC observed that the procedure prescribed
by law for depriving a person of his life and personal liberty must be “right, just and fair” 53
and not “arbitrary, fanciful and oppressive” 54, otherwise it would be no procedure at all and
the requirement of Article 21 would not be satisfied. Further, right to life means something
more is meant than mere animal existence.55The Supreme Court has embraced the qualitative
concept into article 21 when it held that the right to life with human dignity encompasses
within its fold, some of the finer facets of human civilization which make the life worth
living.56

(i) It is a piece of Colorable Legislation

[¶40] It is submitted that colorable 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. 57 It has been held by the hon’ble court in the case of K.C.
Gajapati Narayana Deo v. State of Orissa58that the legislature has to legislate under the limits
of its constitutional powers. It cannot transgress the powers indirectly or directly.

Hence, it is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the Temil Language
Implementation Act is ultra vires the Constitution.

3. DOES PARLIAMENT HAVE THE POWER TO IMPOSE ANY ONE LANGUAGE

THROUGHOUT THE NATION?

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 parliament is duly
empowered to impose hindi throughout the nation, (B) it is in accordance with unity in
diversity.

52
Menaka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) S.C.C. 597 (India).
53
Indrajit Barua v. The State of Assam and Ors., A.I.R. 1983 Del. 513 (India).
54
Satwant Singh Sawhney v D. Ramarathnam, Assistant Passport Officer, Government of India, New Delhi and
Ors., (1967) 3 S.C.R. 525 (India).
55
Munn v. Illinois, 94 U.S. 113 (1877).
56
Consumer Education and Research Centre v. Union of India, (1995) 3 S.C.C. 42 (India).
57
R.S. Joshi v. Ajit Mills, Ahmedabad, A.I.R. 1977 S.C. 2279 (India).
58
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 (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).
 (A) Under Article 351 parliament is duly empowered to impose hindi throughout the
nation

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.59 Under Article 343 of the Constitution Hindi shall be the official language of the
Union.60WHEREAS it is necessary for promoting the sense of unity and facilitating
communication between people in different parts of the country that effective steps should be
taken for implementing fully in all States the three-language formula evolved by the
Government of India in consultation with the State Governments.61

The governments in power have time and again reiterated that 'Hindi' is the national language
of India. For instance, in 2017, Vice President Venkaiah Naidu, called Hindi the national
language of India, in a public address. Same year, the government attempted to institute
Hindi as a language of the United Nations. In 2018, the Ministry of Human Resource
Development issued directives to all the central universities to implement Hindi as a
compulsory course in the bachelor programmes.Mahatma Gandhi during the freedom
struggle had described Hindi as the national language and called for its adoption. He
understood Hindi as Hindustani i.e. a blend of both Sanskritised Hindi and Persianised Urdu,
written either in Devanagari or the Persian script. His opinion resonated with the Constituent
Assembly as well.

The High Courts of Bombay, Calcutta and Madhya Pradesh have sided with the Unity
argument and have remarked that Hindi is the national language of India. 62 It should be noted
however, that such remarks were made in passing, 63 without a formal binding declaration and
hence, are not binding.64Under 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 so far it has a direct bearing and
impact upon the legislative head of co-ordination and determination of standards in

59
R.R. Dalavai v. The State of Tamil Nadu, A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 70 (India).
60
Amaresh Kumar v. Lakshmibai National College of Physical Education, Gwalior, A.I.R. 1996 MP 576
(India).
61
Amaresh Kumar v. Lakshmibai National College of Physical Education, Gwalior, A.I.R. 1996 MP 576
(India).
62
West Bengal Board of Secondary Association v. Siliguri High School, (2003) S.C.C. 525 (India).
63
Raghavendra Prasad v. Union Bank of India, (1998) S.C.C. 177 (India).
64
Bombay Education Society v. State, (1954) S.C.C. 26(India).
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. 65 With the 7th Amendment Act,
Article 350A9 was inserted as follow up to this conference. Article 350A is the only article in
the Constitution that has the word mother tongue and the text of Article 350A makes it clear
that the state has to merely provide facilities to linguistic minority groups for education in
their mother tongue at the primary stage.66

There is a need of common language because today there is a huge influence of English
language on the citizens of India. Due to which in India mostly people preferring English
language only as compared to Hindi language even though it is also provided by the
Constitution of India under Article 351, that it shall be the responsibility to promote the
spread of Hindi language. Under the provisions of Article 351 of the Constitution, all out
attempts have to be made for promotion. spread, development and growth of Hindi language
as a medium of expression for all the elements of composite culture of India

(B) It is in accordance with unity in diversity

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. 67 The vision of diversity in unity and
the perception of plurality in eventual cohesiveness are embedded in the final outcome of the
desire to achieve the accomplished goal through constitutional process. The meeting of the
diversity in unity without losing identity is a remarkable synthesis that the Constitution
conceives without even permitting the slightest contrivance or adroitness.68

As per the report of Census of India 2011 around 43.63%of the total population has Hindi as
their mother tongue. No single language other than Hindi has speakers more than 8.03% of
the total population. And English Language which was connected with the British rule was
established as an alternative for official use because the states which are non-Hindi especially
Tamil Nadu, conflicted the use of Hindi officially.In a case where the petitioner insisted to
submit his thesis for Ph. D in Hindi. The claim of the petitioner was tested with reference to

65
Gujarat University & Anr. v. Shri Krishna Ranganath Mudholkar & Ors., (1962) 0 G.L.R. 204 (India).
66
INDIA CONST. art. 350A
67
Government of NCT of Delhi v. Union of India and Ors., A.I.R.2018 S.C. 680 (India).
68
State of Rajasthan and Ors. v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1977 S.C. 246 (India).
provisions of Article 351. It was held that such a claim is not borne out from the provisions of
the Constitution.69

It is further contended that country diversity in the form of diering languages and identity.
Such diversity can represent signicant barriers to domestic and international trade and
welfare. Empirical estimates of the impact of language on trade indicate that linguistic
proximity is an inuential determinant of bilateral tradeboth internationally and domestically.

Also, for Effective Administration it is the need of the hour as the people who are employed
under the Central Government always face the issue of language when they shifted to the
other regions in India. 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. But unfortunately in real, the present circumstance of India represents “Diversity
in Unity instead of Unity in Diversity”.

Furthermore, Dr. N.G.Ayyangar says in one of his discourses at the Assembly, "There was
one thing about which we achieved a genuinely consistent conclusion that we should choose
one of the languages in India as the basic dialect of the entire of India, the language that
ought to be utilized for the official motivations behind the Union." 70 There is a separate
provision under Article 348 of the Constitution prescribing for the language of the Courts. In
view of the provisions of Article 348(1)(a), Hindi cannot be used in any High Court until a
law on the subject is enacted by the Parliament 71 but it can be implemented as in the instant
case the law has been enacted.72

Hence it is humbly submitted that It is very important to have a common language of the
whole nation which should become the unique individuality of India in the world and for that
parliament is duly empowered to enact law on that.

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?

69
Sunil Kr. Sahastra Budhey v. Director IIT, Kanpur. A.I.R. 1982 All 398 (India).
70
Suniti Kumar Chatterjee, Linguistic Survey of India: Languages and Scripts, Cultural Heritage in India 55-65,
Vol I, Calcutta: Ramakrishna Mission, 2ndedn, (2001).
71
Balraj Misra and Ors. v. Hon'ble Chief Justice of High Court, Allahabad and Ors. (1999) S.C.C. 65(India).
72
Moot proposition
[¶1] 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 as (i) Medium of instruction
should be the choice of the person acquiring the knowledge, (B) The right to choose a
medium of instruction is a fundamental Right of the Child as (i) It is a fundamental right of
Child under Article 19(1)(a), (ii) It is a fundamental right of Child under Article 19(1)(g),
(iii) It is a fundamental right of Child under Article 21 and (iv) It is a fundamental right of
Child under Article 29 and 30 and (C) The Native Language can be considered as Mother
Tongue.

(A) Deciding Medium of Instruction is outside the legislative competence of the State
Legislatures

The meaning and import of the provisions of an Act have to be enquired into in order to
determine its scope.73 The scope of a parliamentary statute must not fall within the ambit of
legislative fields enumerated in List II.74 In Prof Yashpal & Anr. v. State of Chhatisgarh
&Ors.,75 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.

(i) Medium of instruction should be the choice of the person acquiring the knowledge

In 2008, following a string of government orders of the State of Karnataka, the Karnataka
High Court, in the case of Associated Managements of Primary and Secondary Schools in
Karnataka v. The State of Karnataka by its Secretary, Department of Education and Ors. 76has
stated that the medium of acquiring knowledge or information should be the choice of the
person acquiring the knowledge because only when he acquires information in the language,
he is most comfortable or well versed with is he capable of comprehending such information
to the fullest extent possible. Therefore, language of instruction should be the choice of the
student, and there should be no compulsion regarding choice of medium of instruction. If
there is any such compulsion it would violate the fundamental right to freedom of speech and
expression.

73
Orissa Cement Ltd. v. State of Orissa, A.I.R. 1991 S.C. 1676 (India).
74
Naga People’s Movement of Human Rights v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1998 S.C. 431(India).
75
Yashpal & Anr. v. State of Chhatisgarh & Ors., A.I.R. 2005 S.C. 2026 (India).
76
Associated Managements of Primary and Secondary Schools in Karnataka v. The State of Karnataka by its
Secretary, Department of Education and Ors., (2008) I.L.R. Kar. 2895 (India).
 (B) The right to choose a medium of instruction is a fundamental Right of the Child

(i) It is a fundamental right of Child under Article 19(1)(a)

The right to choose a medium of instruction is derived from Article 19(1)(a). 77 The right to
receive information and the right to know is a counterpart of the right to disseminate
information.78 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, 79 the freedom to circulate
ideas and publish one’s views.80 In recent judgement of State of Karnataka & Anr. v.
Associated Management of (Government Recognised – Unaided – English Medium) Primary
& Secondary Schools & Ors.,81 Apex Court has capitalised on growing interpretation of
Article 19(1)(a) andhas recognised the right of a child or on his behalf, his guardian or parent
to freely choose a medium of instruction in primary education. This right, according to court,
is not covered by “reasonable restrictions” in Article 19(2) of Constitution.

In Romesh Thappar v. The State of Madras,82this Court held that freedom of speech and
expression includes freedom of propagation of ideas which is ensured by freedom of
circulation. In line with the earlier decisions of this Court, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
State of Karnataka & Anr vs Asstd. Mang. Of Gov. Rec. Prim.83 held that the right to freedom
of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution 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.

(ii) It is a fundamental right of Child under Article 19(1)(g)

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. College84and the case of State of
Karnatakaand Anr. v. Associated Management of (Government Recognised-Unaided-English

77
INDIA CONST. art. 19, cl. 1(a).
78
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).
79
Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras, A.I.R 1950 .S.C 124 (India).
80
Sakal Papers (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1962 S.C. 305 (India).
81
Associated Managements of Primary and Secondary Schools in Karnataka v. The State of Karnataka by its
Secretary, Department of Education and Ors., (2008) I.L.R. Kar. 2895 (India).
82
Romesh Thappar v. The State of Madras, A.I.R. 1950 S.C. 124 (India).
83
State of Karnataka & Anr v. Asstd. Mang. Of Gov. Rec. Prim., A.I.R.1947 P.C. 35 (India)
84
DAV College v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1971 S.C. 1731 (India).
Medium) Primary and Secondary Schools and Ors.85In the same case, Article 19(1)(g)
underwent a metamorphosed interpretation from T.M.A. Pai.86 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).The right under
Article 350A places an obligation on the state and allows for only providing and not
imposing facilities for instruction in the mother tongue, at the primary stage to linguistic
minorities but no right or power is conferred on the State to compel the linguistic minorities
to choose their mother tongue only as medium of instruction in primary school.87

(iii) It is a fundamental right of Child under Article 21

This Court has held in Unni Krishnan, J.P. & Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.,88that
the 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 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.

(iv) It is fundamental right of Child under Article 29 and 30

In D.A.V. College Bhatinda v. State of Punjab, 89paragraph 9 of the judgement, a combined

reading of Articles 29(1) and 30(1) resulted in the right of the minorities to establish and
administer educational institutions of their choice, which would include the right to have a
choice of the medium of instruction. In re The Kerala Education Bill,90 per paragraph 23 of
the judgement, it was held that Article 30 has to dovetail two considerations – of preserving
language, religion, culture and ensuring general secular education is imparted so that children
of linguistic minorities get on par with other children. In Usha Mehta v. State of Bombay,91
the Supreme Court, in paragraph 11 recognised the right of Gujarati Minorities to run
exclusive Gujarat medium schools subject to the regulation of teaching Marathi language. In

85
Associated Managements of Primary and Secondary Schools in Karnataka v. The State of Karnataka by its
Secretary, Department of Education and Ors., (2008) I.L.R. Kar. 2895 (India).
86
T.M.A. Pai Foundation and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Ors., A.I.R. 2003 S.C. 355 (India).
87
Ibid
88
Unni Krishnan, J.P. & Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., (1993) 1 S.C.C 645 (India).
89
D.A.V. College Bhatinda v. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1971 S.C. 1731 (India).
90
In re The Kerala Education Bill, (1959) 1 S.C.R. 995 (India).
91
Usha Mehta v. State of Bombay, 2004 (5) A.L.D. 33 (India).
this decision, the Court had impliedly recognised the right of linguistic minorities to choose
their medium of instruction in primary education.

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

The term “mother tongue” was used by Catholic monks so as to articulate the language they
used rather than Latin, while “speaking from the pulpit”. 92 “Mother tongue” is one’s native
language93 and a ‘native language’ is defined as the first language a person learns to speak,94
which he is born into and has grown up speaking.95 It is also the language of the community.96

Article 350A is the only article in the Constitution that has the word mother tongue and the
text of Article 350A makes it clear that the state has to merely provide facilities to linguistic
minority groups for education in their mother tongue at the primary stage. In the case of
Tamil Nadu Tamil & English Schools Association v. The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by its
Secretary to Government School Education Department,97 the case stated that the
understanding of the word ‘mother tongue’ is the language that the child is brought up with
and most comfortable speaking. States have been reorganised on a linguistic basis 98 and the
unit for determining linguistic minorities is the state.99

Hence, it is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court 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.

5. DOES PARLIAMENT HAVE UNILATERAL POWER TO DECIDE MEDIUM OF

TRANSACTIONS BY VARIOUS CONSTITUTIONAL INSTITUTIONS INCLUDING
JUDICIARY?
92
Bandyopadhyay, Debaprasad, Mother Tongue Syndrome: From Breast to Bottle, STUDIES IN
SOCIOLINGUISTICS AND APPLIED LINGUISTICS, pp. 87-106, R. Kumar, ed., Booklinks, (2001).
93
M. Ben H. Rampton, Displacing the ‘native speaker’: Expertise, affiliation, and inheritance, 44.2 ELT J 97
(1990).
94
Id. See also David Atkinson, The mother tongue in the classroom: A neglected resource?44.1 ELT J 241
(1987).
95
Love, Nigel, and Umberto Ansaldo, The Native Speaker and the Mother Tongue 32.6 Language Sciences 589
(2010).
96
D.P. Pattanayak, Mother Tongues: The Problem of Definition and the Educational Challenge, Towards A
Multilingual Culture of Education, UNESCO (2014).
97
Tamil Nadu Tamil & English Schools Association v. The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Secretary to
Government School Education Department, (2000) 2 C.T.C 344 (India).
98
THE STATES REORGANISATION ACT, 1956.; Charles Henry Alexandrowicz, Constitutional
Development in India, Indian Branch, Oxford University Press, 1957 and Radha D'Souza, At the confluence of
law and geography: contextualising inter-state water disputes in India, pg. 255-269 (2002).
99
T.M.A. Pai Foundation and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Ors., A.I.R. 2003 S.C. 355 (India).
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.100The law making power of the Parliament is bound by the concept of
constitutional limitation.101 The Constitution of Hindia serves unilateral power to the Union
of Hindia as to decide the medium of transactions by various Constitutional Institutions
including Judiciary. Your Lordship to that extent the Respondent’s would establish that the
decision of Union is taken in purview of to strive balance for promotion of traditional
language jargon and minorities language (A); The decision of Union is part of a Policy
Making which cannot be accepted to be challenged in the Court (B); Parliament has unilateral
power to decide medium of transaction for various Constitutional Institutions (C).

(A) Duty of Union is to strike a balance for promotion of traditional language jargon
and minorities languages.

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 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.102

The Act of 2019 was never promoted with an interest to defy the importance of other official
languages rather the Act gives special status and preferences to the Indhi Language as their
first choice of preferences.103 The Bill clearly indicates that “all States and Union Territories,
the school education up to tenth standard shall adopt three-language formula; Indhi as the
first language; language of the respective state as the second language and English shall be
the third language.”104 The nature of bill is to promote the Indhi as a language which is
constitutional duty of Union as per Article 351, further the Union also try to strike a balance

100
His Holiness Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru v. State of Kerala and another, A.I.R. 1973 S.C.
1461(India).
101
The State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar, A.I.R. 1952 S.C. 75 (India).
102
Islamic Academy of Education and Ors. v. Respondent: State of Karnataka and Ors., A.I.R. 2003 S.C. 3724
(India).
103
Moot Proposition, Page 2
104
Id 6.
of approach as between the Indhi and Regional language as both on first and second
preferences respectively.105

The Bill mandates the school to promote Indhi as a language and its education up to tenth
standard followed up by the state’s language and English. It has been made mandatory that all
of the three languages would be the main subjects in their basic course of learning which
nowhere imposes as a qualifying stage rather just only to promote language and education.106

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

Your Lordship, Public policy does not remain static in any given community. 107 It may vary
from generation to generation and even in the same generation. 108 Public policy would be
almost useless if it were to remain in fixed moulds for all time. 109 This Hon’ble Court itself
held that public policy includes such enforcement “(i) fundamental policy of Indian law; or
(ii) the interests of India; or (iii) justice or morality”.110

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.111In 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.112

Further, the Division Bench of this Court itself in Ajai Kumar v. Union of India and
others113held that the policy decision taken by the Government did not contravene Articles
351, 14 or 16 of the Constitution of Hindia. It was observed that proficiency in language
other than Hindi, if needed for efficiency and discharge for official business, would not

105
Aggarwal, K. S. English and India's three language formula: an empirical perspective. World Englishes, 7(3),
289-298 (1988).
106
Hindi mandatory till Class 10: President agrees in principle 4618914 (2017).
107
ShriLalMahal Ltd. v. ProgettoGrano SPA, (2014) 2 S.C.C. 433 (India).
108
Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v. SAW Pipes Ltd., A.I.R. 2003 S.C. 2629 (India).
109
MurlidharAgarwal&Anr. v. State of U.P. &Ors, A.I.R. 1974 S.C. 1924 (India).
110
Renusagar Power Plant Co Ltd v. General Electric Co, A.I.R. 1994 S.C. 860 (India).
111
Usha Mehta and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., (2004) 2 U.J. 1399 (India).
112
Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record-Association and Ors. v. Union of India (UOI), (2015) 11 S.C.C
1(India).
113
Ajai Kumar v. Union of India and others, (1990) S.C.C. All. 44 (India).
offend against directive principles contained in Article 351 or the same could not be
questioned as infringing any right vested on any citizen.114

5.3 Parliament has unilateral power to decide medium of transaction for various
Constitutional Institutions.

Your Lordship, as per the report of Census of India 2011 around 53.63%of the total
population has Hindi as their mother tongue. No single language other than Hindi has
speakers more than 8.03% of the total population.115In exercise of the powers conferred on
the Parliament by Article 343(3) of the Constitution, the Parliament passed the Official
Languages Act 1963. In 1968, the Parliament amended the Official Languages Act 1963 and
Subsection (4) was added to Section 3 that states:

It was interesting to observed that so far as Part XVII of the Constitution of India is
concerned, English has never been insofar included as an official language of the Union,
including language to be used in the Supreme Court and the High Court is concerned. Formal
use of Hindi language as leading language is not unconstitutional 116 and English Language
which was connected with the British rule was just established as an alternative for official
use which are non-Hindi officially.

5.3.1 Parliament is competent to decide Medium of Transaction of Judiciary.

Your Lordship placing reliance upon Article 348 (1) of the Constitution that provides all
proceedings in the Supreme Court and in every High court shall be in English Language until
Parliament by law otherwise provides. Section 7 of the Official Languages Act, 1963,
provides that the use of Hindi or official language of a State in addition to the English
language may be authorized, with the consent of the President of India, by the Governor of
the State for purpose of judgments etc. made by the High Court for that State. 117The objective
and soul of this Act can be gained by placing reliance on paragraph 23.10 of HM Seervai's
Constitutional Law of India,118 which runs as follows:

114
Krishna Yadav v. State of Bihar and Ors., (2019) 3 B.L.J. 497 (India).
115
Census of India (2021).
116
JaishriLaxmanraoPatil and Ors. v. The Chief Minister and Ors., (2021) 3 K.L.T. 465 (India).
117
The Official Languages Act, 1963, Section 7
118
HM Seervai's Constitutional Law of India, Ed, Vol. III, page 2585 (1996).
“If the unity of the judicial administration, and of the Bench and the Bar is to be preserved.
The Advocates Act, 1961 has created a unified autonomous Bar of India. Today the legal
profession is one united profession entitled to practise throughout India. If the language of
different High Courts is to be different, the right to practise throughout India becomes
illusory in practise and each High Court will be isolated by the barrier of its own language.
The work of the Supreme Court and the recruitment of Judges to the Supreme Court must
greatly suffer, for Judges of the Supreme Court could not be recruited from High Courts
where the language was different from that spoken in the Supreme Court.”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.119

Hence, the Act must be declared as constitutionally valid and under the competence of
Parliament as it is as per the constitutional norms of legislative formulation and also in
accordance to unfettered Fundamental Rights.

119
Committee of Parliament on Official Language by Government of India (2021).