Government Cannot Impose Mother Tongue as the Medium of Instruction in Schools: Supreme Court

Recently, the Supreme Court gave a landmark judgment[1] deciding the question with respect to the power of the government to impose mother tongue as the medium of instruction in primary education. There were five questions framed by the court namely:

1. What does Mother tongue mean? If it referred to as the language in which the child is comfortable with, then who will decide the same?

2. Whether a student or a parent or a citizen has a right to choose a medium of instruction at primary stage?

3. Does the imposition of mother tongue in any way affect the fundamental rights under Article 14, 19, 29 and 30 of the Constitution?

4. Whether the Government recognized schools are inclusive of both government aided schools and private & unaided schools?

5. Whether the State can by virtue of Article 350-A of the Constitution compel the linguistic minorities to choose their mother tongue only as medium of instruction in primary schools?

I will present the answers given by the court for each question. In the present post, I will deal with the first two questions only.

What does Mother tongue mean? If it referred to as the language in which the child is comfortable with, then who will decide the same?

The only provision in the Constitution which contains the expression “mother tongue” is Article 350A.

A mere reading of Article 350A[2] of the Constitution would show that it casts a duty on every State and 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. Hence, the expression ‘mother tongue’ in Article 350A clearly means the mother tongue of the linguistic minority group in a particular State and this would obviously mean the language of that particular linguistic minority group.

The Court held that “the ‘mother tongue’ in the context of the Constitution would, therefore, mean the language of the linguistic minority in a State and it is the parent or the guardian of the child who will decide what the mother tongue of child is. The Constitution nowhere provides that mother tongue is the language which the child is comfortable with, and while this meaning of ‘mother tongue’ may be a possible meaning of the ‘expression’, this is not the meaning of mother tongue in Article 350A of the Constitution or in any other provision of the Constitution and hence we cannot either expand the power of the State or restrict a fundamental right by saying that mother tongue is the language which the child is comfortable with”.

Whether a student or a parent or a citizen has a right to choose a medium of instruction at primary stage?

The Court said that ‘freedom’ under article 19 means absence of control by the State. Thus, in all matters specified in clause (1) of Article 19, the citizen has the liberty to choose, subject only to restrictions in clauses (2) to (6) of Article 19.

John Stuart Mill in the famous essay ‘On Liberty’ writes:

“Secondly, the principle requires liberty of tastes and pursuits; of framing the plan of our life to suit our own character; of doing as we like, subject to such consequences as may follow: without impediment from our fellow creatures, so long as what we do does not harm them, even though they should think our conduct foolish, perverse, or wrong.”

Thus each individual must in certain matters be left alone to frame the plan of his life to suit his own character and to do as he likes without any impediment and even if he decides to act foolishly in such matters, society or on its behalf the State should not interfere with the choice of the individual. Similarly Harold J. Laski in “A Grammar of Politics” writes:

“My freedoms are avenues of choice through which I may, as I deem fit, construct for myself my own course of conduct. And the freedoms I must possess to enjoy a general liberty are those which, in their sum, will constitute the path through which my best self is capable of attainment. That is not to say it will be attained. It is to say only that I alone can make that best self, and that without those freedoms I have not the means of manufacture at my disposal.”

The court further said that freedom or choice in the matter of speech and expression is absolutely necessary for an individual to develop his personality in his own way and this is one reason, if not the only reason, why under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution every citizen has been guaranteed the right to freedom of speech and expression.

The Court also went into the question whether receiving information or education by a citizen was part of his right to freedom of speech and expression in Secretary, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, Government of India & Ors. v. Cricket Association of Bengal & Ors. (supra) and held that the right to freedom of speech and expression in Article 19(1(a) of the Constitution will not only include the right to impart information but also the right to receive information. The court observed that the right to freedom of speech and expression also includes the right to educate, to inform and to entertain and also the right to be educated, informed and entertained.

Finally in this case, the court said that it is of the view 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.

Thus a child or on his behalf his parent or guardian, has a right to freedom of choice with regard to the medium of instruction in which he would like to be educated at the primary stage in school.

The court also differentiated between the rights under Article 19 and Article 21A. According to the court, the language of Article 21 makes it clear that such free education which a child can claim from the State will be in a manner as the State may, by law, determine.

Hence, the State determines by law that in schools where free education is provided under Article 21A of the Constitution, the medium of instruction would be in the mother tongue or in any language, the child cannot claim as of right under Article 21 or Article 21A of the Constitution that he has a right to choose the medium of instruction in which the education should be imparted to him by the State. The right to choose the medium of instruction at the primary school stage is under Article 19(1)(a) and not under Article 21 or Article 21A of the Constitution.

Rest of the questions will be dealt with in the next post.

---

[1] State of Karnataka v. Associated Management of (Government Recognised – Unaided – English Medium) Primary & Secondary Schools & Ors., S.L.P. (C) No.32858 of 2013

[2] Article 350A – 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 or proper for securing the provision of such facilities.