Linguistic Pluralism, and Part XVII

Article 346. The language authorised for the Union is the language of official communication between States and between a State and the Union, with power for two States to agree on Hindi.

Article 347. On a demand being made, and if the President is satisfied that a substantial proportion of the population of a State desire the use of any language spoken by them to be recognised by that State, he may direct that it be officially recognised throughout the State or any part of it.

Article 210, which is the same idea inside the State legislature. Clause (1): notwithstanding anything in Part XVII, but subject to article 348, "business in the Legislature of a State shall be transacted IN THE OFFICIAL LANGUAGE OR LANGUAGES OF THE STATE OR IN HINDI OR IN ENGLISH", with a proviso that the Speaker or the Chairman may permit a member WHO CANNOT ADEQUATELY EXPRESS HIMSELF in any of those languages TO ADDRESS THE HOUSE IN HIS MOTHER-TONGUE. Clause (2) provided that, unless the State Legislature otherwise provides, the words "or in English" were to drop out after fifteen years from the commencement, with provisos extending that period to twenty-five years for Himachal Pradesh, Manipur, Meghalaya and Tripura and further for other later-formed States. Article 120 is its counterpart for Parliament, in the same terms with the Speaker or Chairman holding the same permitting power.

The proviso is the part to notice. The clause names the languages a House may use; the proviso is a personal accommodation for a member who cannot manage any of them, and it is drafted around the member's INABILITY rather than around his preference. That is linguistic pluralism at its narrowest and most practical: not a right to speak one's own language in the House, but a right not to be silenced by not knowing the House's.

Article 348. Until Parliament provides otherwise, the language of the Supreme Court and of every High Court, and of every Bill, Act, Ordinance, order, rule, regulation and byelaw, is English. Clause (2) lets a Governor, with the President's previous consent, authorise Hindi or another State language in the High Court, but not for judgments, decrees and orders unless Parliament so provides.

Article 349 requires the President's previous sanction for a Bill altering the language used for the purposes mentioned in article 348, for fifteen years from the commencement.

The protection of the linguistic minority

Article 29(1). Any section of citizens having a distinct language, script or culture of its own has the right to conserve it. This is the general protection, and it is not confined to minorities.

Article 350. Every person is entitled to submit a representation for the redress of any grievance to any officer or authority of the Union or a State in any of the languages used in the Union or in the State.

Article 350A, inserted by the Seventh Amendment 1956. It shall be the endeavour of every State and of every local authority within the State to provide adequate facilities for instruction in the mother tongue at the primary stage of education to children belonging to linguistic minority groups; and the President may issue such directions to any State as he considers necessary for securing this.

Article 350B, inserted at the same time. There shall be a Special Officer for linguistic minorities appointed by the President, to investigate all matters relating to the safeguards provided for linguistic minorities under the Constitution and report to the President, who shall cause the reports to be laid before each House and sent to the State concerned.

And the Eighth Schedule lists the languages, now twenty-two, from which the Commission and Committee under article 344 draw and to which article 351's directive on the development of Hindi refers.

The cases

A State may not compel the medium of instruction, and this is the leading modern authority. In State of Karnataka v. Associated Management of Primary and Secondary Schools, (2014) 9 SCC 485; AIR 2014 SC 2094. Facts. Karnataka's language policy required that the medium of instruction from the first to the fourth standard be the mother tongue or Kannada, in government and recognised private schools alike. Held. By a Constitution Bench, that the State cannot impose the mother tongue or a regional language as the medium of instruction: the right to freedom of speech and expression under article 19(1)(a) includes the right of a child, and of a parent on the child's behalf, to CHOOSE THE MEDIUM OF INSTRUCTION, and the right of a minority under article 30(1) to establish and administer institutions of its choice includes the choice of medium. Why it matters here is that it fixes the limit of linguistic policy: a State may promote a language and may not compel it as a medium.

The earlier decision it displaced went the other way on part of the question. In English Medium Students Parents Association v. State of Karnataka, (1994) 1 SCC 550; AIR 1994 SC 1702. Facts. The same State's policy of imposing the regional language as the medium in the primary classes was challenged. Held. That the policy could be applied to State and State-aided schools but not to unaided minority institutions, and the Court declined at that stage to hold the policy generally invalid. Why it matters here is that a candidate should state the sequence: the 1994 position was narrower and the 2014 Constitution Bench is the law.

A university's medium is not a State subject at large. In The Gujarat University v. Krishna Ranganath Mudholkar, AIR 1963 SC 703. Facts. Gujarat University purported to prescribe Gujarati or Hindi as the exclusive medium of instruction and examination in affiliated colleges; a student sought to be taught in English. Held. By a majority, that the power to prescribe a medium of instruction is not an independent legislative head and that a State law cannot, under the education entry as it then stood, prescribe an exclusive medium in a way that trenches upon Parliament's power in respect of the coordination and determination of standards in institutions of higher education under Entry 66 of List I. Why it matters here is that it shows the federal dimension of the language question, and it is the case that ties this chapter back to Module I.

And a linguistic minority's institution may not be compelled to teach a language. In D.A.V. College v. State of Punjab, AIR 1971 SC 1731; (1971) 2 SCC 269. Facts. Punjab University required affiliated colleges to teach in Punjabi in the Gurmukhi script; Arya Samaj colleges, a religious minority in the State, objected. Held. That compulsory affiliation on terms requiring instruction in Punjabi violated article 30(1), while a requirement that Punjabi be studied as a subject was permissible; and that the Arya Samajis were a religious minority in Punjab for the purpose of article 30. Why it matters here is that it distinguishes teaching a language, which may be required, from teaching in a language, which may not.

A worked example

A State whose official language is X requires that all school leaving examinations be conducted in X, that all High Court pleadings be in X, and that all correspondence with the Union Government be in X. Which stand?

The examinations fail on the 2014 Constitution Bench. The State may promote X and may require it to be taught as a subject; it may not compel it as the medium.

The High Court requirement fails on article 348 unless the procedure was followed. Until Parliament provides otherwise the language of a High Court is English, and a Governor may authorise a State language for proceedings only with the President's previous consent, and not for judgments, decrees and orders unless Parliament so provides.

The correspondence with the Union fails on article 346. The language authorised for use in the Union is the language for official communication between a State and the Union, so the State cannot unilaterally require X.

And the constructive half. The State may adopt X under article 345, may require it as a subject, may seek the President's consent under article 348(2), and may ask the President under article 347 to recognise a minority language spoken by a substantial proportion of its people. That is the machinery, and it is generous to a State that uses it.

Distinctions

What it does NOT mean

It does not mean Hindi is the national language. The Constitution uses the words "official language of the Union" and there is no national language.

It does not mean English ended in 1965. Article 343(3) let Parliament provide otherwise and the Official Languages Act 1963 did, with section 3(5) making its discontinuance depend on a resolution of every non-Hindi State.

It does not mean article 350A is enforceable as a right. It is cast as an endeavour, with a Presidential direction as the mechanism, though the courts have treated it as a real obligation when read with article 29(1).

And it does not mean a State may not promote its language. It may adopt it, require it as a subject, and use it in administration. What it may not do is compel it as a medium of instruction or displace English in the High Court without the prescribed consent.

Quick revision

Article 343: Hindi in Devanagari as the official language of the Union, English for fifteen years to 25 January 1965, and Parliament free to continue English, which it did by the Official Languages Act 1963; section 3(5) of that Act makes discontinuance depend on a resolution of the Legislature of every non-Hindi State and of both Houses. Article 344: the Commission and Committee. Article 345: the State's official language. Article 346: communication between governments. Article 347: recognition on demand of a language spoken by a substantial proportion. Article 348: English for the Supreme Court, the High Courts and legislation, with a Governor's power under clause (2) with the President's previous consent. Article 349: the President's sanction for fifteen years. Article 350: representations in any language used. Article 350A: mother-tongue instruction at the primary stage. Article 350B: the Special Officer. Article 351: developing Hindi. The Eighth Schedule now lists twenty-two languages. Associated Management 2014: no compelled medium of instruction. D.A.V. College: a language may be required as a subject but not as the medium. Gujarat University v. Mudholkar: the federal limit on prescribing a medium.

Test yourself

1. Is Hindi the national language of India? No. Article 343(1) makes Hindi in the Devanagari script the OFFICIAL LANGUAGE OF THE UNION, and the Constitution nowhere provides for a national language.

2. What happened to English after 25 January 1965? Article 343(3) allowed Parliament to provide for its continued use, and section 3(1) of the Official Languages Act 1963 does so. Section 3(5) provides that section 3 shall not cease to have effect until a resolution for its discontinuance is passed by the Legislature of every State that has not adopted Hindi and by each House of Parliament.

3. What is the difference between requiring a language to be taught and requiring it as a medium? A State may require a language to be taught as a subject, as D.A.V. College permits. It may not compel it as the medium of instruction: the Constitution Bench in State of Karnataka v. Associated Management held that article 19(1)(a) includes the right to choose the medium, and article 30(1) includes a minority institution's choice of medium.

4. State what articles 350A and 350B require. Article 350A: every State and local authority shall endeavour to provide adequate facilities for instruction in the mother tongue at the primary stage to children of linguistic minority groups, with a Presidential power of direction. Article 350B: a Special Officer for linguistic minorities appointed by the President, whose reports are laid before each House and sent to the State.

5. In what language must a High Court work? English, until Parliament provides otherwise, under article 348(1). A Governor may with the President's previous consent authorise Hindi or a State language in proceedings, but not for judgments, decrees and orders unless Parliament so provides.

6. How may a language spoken by a large minority in a State be officially recognised? Under article 347, on a demand being made and if the President is satisfied that a substantial proportion of the population desire it, he may direct that the language be officially recognised throughout the State or in any part of it.