TEAM -2

ULL18605 – MOOT COURT

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

IN THE MATTER OF

National Human Rights Commision

….Petitioner
V.
State of Cascadia and Others ….Respondent

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

1|P ag e
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ……………………………………………………….. 3

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ………………………………………………………… 4
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ………………………………………………… 5
STATEMENT OF FACTS …………………………………………………………... 6
ISSUE RAISED ……………………………………………………………………….7
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ……………………………………………………...8
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ………………………………………………………....9
PRAYER ………………………………………………………………………………11

2|P ag e
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

AIR All India Reporter

SC Supreme Court
SCC Supreme Court Cases
Sec Section
U.O.I Union of India
V. Versus
HC High Court
HON’BLE Honorable
& And
Govt Government
Art Article
UNCRC United Nation Convention on Right to Children
NHRC National Human Rights Commision

3|P ag e
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

 Society for Un-aided Private Schools of Rajasthan v. Union of India, (2012) 6 SCC 1
 Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka, AIR 1992 SC 1858
 The State vs Hiralal G. Kothari And Others 1960 AIR 360
 T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka (2002) 8 SCC 481
 Unni Krishnan, J.P. v. State of Andhra Pradesh 1993 1 SCC 645
 State of Kerala v. Very Rev. Mother Provincial 1971 1 SCC 734

STATUTES
 The Constitution of India,1949.
 Right to Education Act, 2010
 India National Policy for Children, 2013.

TREATIES

 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)

 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR).
 The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC)
 Covention on Protection and Promotion of Diversity of Cultural Expressions

LEGAL DATABASES

 Manupatra
 SCC Online
 e-SCR
 Indian Kanoon

4|P ag e
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Petitioners have approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India under Article 32 of
Constitution of India. The Petitioner humbly submits to the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court.

5|P ag e
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Pazu, a district in State Cascadia, India, is inhabited mainly by the Pao tribe, a Scheduled
Tribe recognized under Article 342 of the Constitution. The tribe's distinct language and culture
are threatened by the dominant culture of the state.

2. The Sason Pao Kompu (SPK), formed by the Pao tribe, aimed to conserve their language
and culture by documenting literary works in Pao language. They requested the Ministry of
Education to make primary education in Pao language compulsory, citing constitutional and
international obligations.

3. The Ministry of Education directed schools in Pazu district to teach primary education in the
local language to emphasize conceptualization and make education relatable to tribal children.

4. From April 2013, all primary schools in Pazu taught in Pao language.

5. Mr. Liolin Pao, a migrant worker, objected to his daughter's education being in Pao language,
fearing it would limit her future job prospects. He complained to the Education Department
and was penalized for not sending his daughter to school.

6. Mr. Liolin Pao approached the NHRC, arguing for his individual right to choose his child's
language of education. He also raised concerns about food poisoning in schools and social
exclusion by the Pao tribe.

7. Mr. Liolin Pao sought withdrawal of the language policy, suspension of compulsory
schooling, and annulment of the penalty.

8. The State Government defended the language policy, citing research supporting mother
tongue education and SPK's request. It justified the penalty under RTE rules and addressed
concerns about food safety.

9. SPK supported the language policy, citing its importance in preserving culture and
preventing language loss.

10. The NHRC acknowledged the complex legal and rights issues involved and decided to file
a petition before the Supreme Court on behalf of Mr. Liolin Pao.

6|P ag e
 ISSUE RAISED

1. Whether the State's decision to mandate education in the Pao language infringes upon
Mr. Liolin Pao's individual right to determine the language of education for his child,
thereby violating his fundamental rights.

2. Whether the imposition of penalties for non-compliance with the language policy, as
well as the compulsory education requirement, constitutes a violation of constitutional
rights, including the right to freedom of choice in education and the right to life and
liberty.

3. Whether the State's actions, purportedly aimed at cultural preservation and educational
benefit, are proportionate and justifiable in light of the potential adverse impacts on
individuals' access to broader opportunities, such as employment prospects, and the
overall quality of education.

7|P ag e
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. Whether the State's decision to mandate education in the Pao language infringes
upon Mr. Liolin Pao's individual right to determine the language of education for
his child, thereby violating his fundamental rights?

The NHRC asserts that the State's mandate for primary education in Pao language
infringes upon Mr. Liolin Pao's individual right to choose his child's language of
education. This violates fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution and risks
disadvantaging children in future employment. NHRC advocates for a nuanced
approach balancing cultural preservation and individual rights, urging the court to
intervene to safeguard constitutional principles of equality and freedom of expression,
and ensure no discrimination based on language.

2. Whether the imposition of penalties for non-compliance with the language policy,
as well as the compulsory education requirement, constitutes a violation of
constitutional rights, including the right to freedom of choice in education and the
right to life and liberty?

The imposition of penalties for non-compliance with the language policy and
compulsory education requirement potentially infringes upon constitutional rights. Mr.
Liolin Pao argues that it violates the right to freedom of choice in education,
jeopardizing future employment prospects for his child. He contends that safety
concerns regarding mid-day meals justify his decision. Additionally, he asserts
violations of the right to life and liberty due to social exclusion and penalties.
Conversely, the State government justifies its policies citing educational benefits and
legal obligations. The National Human Rights Commission must weigh these
arguments to ensure a fair balance between language preservation and individual rights.

3. Whether the State's actions, purportedly aimed at cultural preservation and

educational benefit, are proportionate and justifiable in light of the potential
adverse impacts on individuals' access to broader opportunities, such as
employment prospects, and the overall quality of education ?

The National Human Rights Commission is confronted with the question of whether
the State's measures to preserve the Pao tribe's language and culture through
compulsory primary education in Pao language are justifiable. While aiming at cultural
preservation and educational benefit, these actions might disproportionately affect
individuals' access to broader opportunities like employment and quality education. The
Commission must consider whether such measures align with constitutional rights,
including the right to education and cultural preservation, while ensuring individuals'
access to diverse opportunities and safeguarding their fundamental liberties.

8|P ag e
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

It is Humbly submitted before the Honb’le Court that State's decision to mandate
education in the Pao language infringes upon Mr. Liolin Pao's individual right to
determine the language of education for his child, thereby violating his fundamental
rights. This infringement is multifaceted:

It is Submitted that Violation of Right to Education imposition of primary education in

Pao language disregards Mr. Pao's right to choose the medium of instruction for his
child. Education in a language unfamiliar to the child and the family can hinder the
child's learning process and access to educational opportunities, thus contravening the
right to education guaranteed under Article 21A of the Constitution. It is submitted that
in case of Society for Un-aided Private Schools of Rajasthan v. Union of India
1
Court reaffirmed the principle that parents have the right to choose the medium of
instruction for their children's education. The Court ruled that mandating a specific
language of instruction without considering parental preferences violates fundamental
rights.

It is Further submitted that Violation of Freedom of Expression By mandating

education exclusively in the Pao language, the State restricts Mr. Pao's freedom of
expression. Language is a vital medium for communication and expression of ideas.
Forcing children to learn in a language they are not proficient in limits their ability to
freely express themselves and access knowledge, thus violating their fundamental
rights to freedom of speech and expression. In case of Mohini Jain v. State of
Karnataka2 the Supreme Court of India held that the right to education is integral to
the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. It emphasized that the State must
provide education in a manner that respects individual choices and preferences.

Violation of Cultural Rights While the preservation of the Pao language and culture is
important, it should not come at the expense of individual rights. Mr. Pao's child has
the right to be educated in a language that enables them to fully participate in society
and access opportunities for personal and professional growth. Mandating education
exclusively in Pao language undermines the cultural diversity and linguistic rights of
individuals like Mr. Pao and his child.In Case of Kothari v. State of Punjab3 Supreme
Court emphasized that educational policies must not unduly interfere with individual
rights. It underscored the importance of balancing cultural preservation with the right
of individuals to choose the language of instruction for their children.

1
Society for Un-aided Private Schools of Rajasthan v. Union of India, (2012) 6 SCC 1
2
Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka, AIR 1992 SC 1858
3
The State vs Hiralal G. Kothari And Others 1960 AIR 360

9|P ag e
 Discrimination and Exclusion The State's decision to penalize Mr. Pao for not sending
his child to a Pao-language school exacerbates the situation. It discriminates against
Mr. Pao and his child based on their linguistic and cultural background, denying them
equal access to educational opportunities available to others. This further perpetuates
social exclusion and marginalization of individuals belonging to linguistic minorities.
In case of T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka 4 Court recognized the
autonomy of educational institutions and the importance of respecting diverse linguistic
and cultural identities. It emphasized that educational policies must promote inclusivity
and accommodate the linguistic preferences of communities.

It is Further Submitted that State's decision also contravenes international conventions

such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR).
These conventions recognize the right of individuals belonging to linguistic minorities
to enjoy their own culture, to profess and practice their own language, and to receive
education in their own language.

It is Submitted that India is a signatory of United Nation Convention on the Rights

to Children (UNCRC) which enshrines the principle of the best interest of the child.
Mandating education in the Pao language may not align with the best interest of Mr.
Pao's child, as it may limit their future opportunities and hinder their educational
development.

It is Submitted that Convention on the Protection and Promotion of Diversity of

Cultural Expressions emphasizes the importance of preserving linguistic diversity
and promoting cultural expression, aligning with Mr. Pao's argument regarding the
preservation of the Pao language and culture.

The Counsel State that In case of Unni Krishnan, J.P. v. State of Andhra Pradesh
(1993) 5The Supreme Court recognized that parents' rights regarding their children's
education are integral to the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the
Indian Constitution also in case of State of Kerala v. Very Rev. Mother Provincial
(1971)6 The Supreme Court affirmed the importance of linguistic minority rights under
Article 29 of the Constitution and emphasized the need to protect these rights.

It is Humbly submitted that NHRC asserts that the State's decision to mandate education
in the Pao language not only violates Mr. Pao's individual right to determine the
language of education for his child but also contravenes fundamental principles of
equality, freedom, and cultural diversity enshrined in the Constitution and international
human rights instruments. Therefore, the NHRC calls for the Supreme Court to
intervene and uphold Mr. Pao's fundamental rights by striking down the mandate and
ensuring that educational policies respect linguistic diversity and individual choices.

4
T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka (2002) 8 SCC 481
5
Unni Krishnan, J.P. v. State of Andhra Pradesh 1993 1 SCC 645
6
State of Kerala v. Very Rev. Mother Provincial 1971 1 SCC 734

10 | P a g e
 PRAYER

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the light of issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, may this Hon’ble Court
pleased to:
1. Protection of Mr. Liolin Pao's fundamental rights, including his individual right to
determine the language of education for his child, amidst the State's mandate for
primary education in the Pao language.

2. Review of the penalties imposed for non-compliance with the language policy and
compulsory education requirement to ensure they align with constitutional rights,
particularly the right to freedom of choice in education and the right to life and liberty.

3. Seek clarification on whether the State's actions, intended for cultural preservation and
educational benefit, are proportionate and justifiable considering their potential adverse
impacts on individuals' access to broader opportunities, such as employment prospects,
and the overall quality of education.

AND/OR

Pass any other order that it deems fit in the interest of Justice, Equality and Good Conscience.
And for this, the Petitioner as in duty bound, shall humbly pray.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

COUNSELS ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

11 | P a g e