The Medium of Instruction

Held. The Court upheld the High Court and dismissed the appeals, holding in particular that a provision making Kannada the sole FIRST LANGUAGE in secondary schools violated articles 29 and 30. The Government orders of June 1989 were treated as valid so far as they went.

Why it matters. It is the first round of a litigation the Constitution Bench had to settle twenty years later, and it shows the Court distinguishing between a compulsory first language and a compulsory medium.

The settled position.

Facts. State of Karnataka v. Associated Management of Primary and Secondary Schools, (2014) 9 SCC 485, decided 6 May 2014 by a Constitution Bench of five, Lodha CJI with Patnaik, Mukhopadhaya, Dipak Misra and Kalifulla JJ. Karnataka's language policy required the mother tongue, or Kannada, to be the medium from the first to the fourth standard in all government and government-recognised schools. The High Court struck it down; five questions were referred, including what mother tongue means, whether a student, parent or citizen has a right to choose the medium at the primary stage, whether imposing the mother tongue affects articles 14, 19, 29 and 30, whether government-recognised schools include unaided ones, and whether article 350A empowers the State to compel a linguistic minority to choose its mother tongue as the medium.

Held. The appeals were dismissed. The parent or the child has the right to choose the medium of instruction at the primary stage as part of the freedom of speech and expression under article 19(1)(a), and the right is also implicit in the right to education. Government-recognised schools include both aided and unaided recognised schools. And article 350A, which requires every State to endeavour to provide adequate facilities for instruction in the mother tongue at the primary stage to children of linguistic minority groups, cannot be interpreted to empower the State to compel a linguistic minority to choose its mother tongue only as the medium in a primary school it has established, since that would violate article 30(1).

Why it matters. It settles the primary branch, and it settles it on article 19(1)(a). A student who answers this question out of articles 29, 30 and 350A alone has missed the ground of decision.

The compulsory subject, which is different

Facts. Usha Mehta v. State of Maharashtra, (2004) 6 SCC 264, decided 5 May 2004 by Rajendra Babu CJI with Lakshmanan and Mathur JJ. The Government of Maharashtra made the study of Marathi compulsory throughout the schools of the State. English-medium schools run by Gujarati linguistic minorities were in consequence required to teach four languages, Hindi, English, Marathi and Gujarati, against the accepted three-language formula, and challenged the policy as violating their rights as a linguistic minority.

Held. The petition was dismissed. The policy decision making the regional language a compulsory subject of study was not violative of the linguistic minority rights guaranteed by articles 29 and 30 or of any other provision.

Why it matters. It is the other side of the line. A compulsory SUBJECT is within a State's power; a compulsory MEDIUM is not. Every question in this topic turns on that distinction, and an answer that gives both cases together is much stronger than one that gives either alone.

The distinction, in a table

A worked example

A State provides that from standards one to four the medium in every recognised school shall be the mother tongue or the State language; that the State language shall be a compulsory subject from standard one; and that in its own universities the medium shall be the State language alone.

The medium in standards one to four. Invalid on Associated Management. The parent's and the child's right to choose the medium at the primary stage is part of article 19(1)(a), and as against a linguistic minority's own school it also offends article 30(1). It makes no difference that the school is unaided but recognised: recognised schools include unaided recognised ones.

The compulsory subject. Valid on Usha Mehta, even for a linguistic minority's school, though a school already teaching three languages may argue about the burden under the three-language formula, which is policy rather than law.

The university medium. Invalid on Mudholkar: the medium in higher education is a necessary incident of the Union's power over the co-ordination and determination of standards, now Entries 63 to 66 of List I read with Entry 25 of List III.

And if the State says article 350A obliges it. Associated Management answers that in terms: article 350A is an endeavour to provide facilities for mother-tongue instruction, not a power to compel it.

What this does NOT mean

It does not mean a State cannot promote its language. It may make it a compulsory subject, fund instruction in it, and require it for its own recruitment.

It does not mean mother-tongue instruction is a bad policy. The educational case for it is strong and the Court did not dispute it; what the Court held is that the choice belongs to the parent and the child.

And it does not mean the two branches can be run together. The higher-education answer is competence and the primary answer is fundamental rights, and an answer that mixes them will get the reasoning wrong even where it gets the result right.

Quick revision

Two branches. Higher education, Mudholkar 1962: a State university may not impose an exclusive medium, because the medium in higher education is a necessary incident of the Union's power over co-ordination and determination of standards, Entries 63 to 66 of List I; education is now Entry 25 of List III, expressly subject to those entries. Primary education, Associated Management 2014, Constitution Bench: the parent or child may choose the medium at the primary stage as part of article 19(1)(a) and as implicit in the right to education; recognised schools include unaided recognised schools; article 350A is an endeavour to provide, not a power to compel, and compelling a linguistic minority would violate article 30(1). English Medium Students Parents Association 1993: making Kannada the sole first language in secondary schools violates articles 29 and 30. Usha Mehta 2004: a compulsory SUBJECT, even for a linguistic minority's school, is valid.

Test yourself

1. On what ground was the medium question decided for higher education? Legislative competence. In Mudholkar the Court held that the medium of instruction in higher education is a necessary incident of the Union's power over the co-ordination and determination of standards under Entries 63 to 66 of List I, and so excluded from the State's power over education.

2. On what ground was it decided for primary education? On fundamental rights. In Associated Management the Constitution Bench held that the parent or the child has the right to choose the medium at the primary stage as part of the freedom of speech and expression under article 19(1)(a), and that it is also implicit in the right to education.

3. Can a State compel a linguistic minority's school to teach in the mother tongue by relying on article 350A? No. Article 350A requires a State to endeavour to PROVIDE adequate facilities for mother-tongue instruction at the primary stage; it cannot be read as a power to COMPEL, and to do so would violate article 30(1).

4. State the distinction between a compulsory medium and a compulsory subject, with a case for each. A compulsory medium is not permissible: Associated Management for primary education and Mudholkar for higher. A compulsory subject is permissible even for a linguistic minority's school: Usha Mehta.

5. Does the rule differ for aided and unaided schools? Not on the medium question at the primary stage. Associated Management held that government-recognised schools include both aided and unaided recognised schools, so the right to choose the medium operates in both. The extent of other regulation does vary with aid, on T.M.A. Pai.