Government Cannot Impose Mother Tongue as the Medium of Instruction in Schools: Part II

In the last post, we discussed two of the five questions framed by the court in the case of State of Karnataka v. Associated Management of (Government Recognised – Unaided – English Medium) Primary & Secondary Schools & Others. The five questions framed by the court are as follows:

1. What does Mother tongue mean? If it is 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?

In the present post, we will discuss the manner in which the court answered the third question.

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

The court started by stating that “a reading of clause (1) of Article 29[1] of the Constitution provides that any section of the citizens residing in the territory of India or any part thereof having a distinct language, script or culture of its own shall have the right to conserve the same and clause (1) of Article 30[2] provides that all minorities, whether based on religion or language, shall have the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice”.

Subsequently, the court cited plethora of cases to find the answer to the above-mentioned question.

1. In D.A.V. College, Bhatinda, etc. v. The State of Punjab & Ors., the Court held that:

“The right of the minorities to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice would include the right to have a choice of the medium of instruction also which would be the result of reading Article 30(1) with Article 29(1).”

2. In the case of In re The Kerala Education Bill, 1957, the court held that:

“In other words, article 30 leaves it to the choice of Religious Minorities to establish such educational institutions as will serve both purposes, namely, the purpose of conserving their religion, language or culture, and also the purpose of giving a thorough, good general education to their children.”

3. In T.M.A. Pai Foundation & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors., the court interpreted that the right under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution includes the right to establish and run educational institutions. The court further said that:

“The establishment and running of an educational institution where a large number of persons are employed as teachers or administrative staff, and an activity is carried on that results in the imparting of knowledge to the students, must necessarily be regarded as an occupation, even if there is no element of profit generation. It is difficult to comprehend that education, per se, will not fall under any of the four expressions in Article 19(1)(g). ‘Occupation’ would be an activity of a person undertaken as a means of livelihood or a mission in life.”

According to the court, the absence of the word “choice” in article 19(1)(g) does not make a material difference because Article 19 of the Constitution is titled “Right to Freedom” and the word “freedom” along with the word “any” before the word “occupation” in Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution would mean that the right to establish and administer an educational institution will include the right of a citizen to establish a school for imparting education in a medium of instruction of his choice. If a citizen thinks that he should establish a school and in such a school, the medium of instruction should be a particular language then he can exercise such right subject to the reasonable regulations made by the State under Article 19(6) of the Constitution. Thus, the court opined that a private unaided school which is not a minority school and which does not enjoy the protection of Articles 29(1) and 30(1) of the Constitution can choose a medium of instruction for imparting education to the children in the school.

In Gujarat University & Anr. v. Shri Krishna Ranganath Mudholkar & Ors., a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held that:

“The power to legislate in respect of primary or secondary education is exclusively vested in the States by item 2 of List II, and power to legislate on medium of instruction in institutions of primary or secondary education must therefore rest with the State Legislatures.”

Thus we find that the Constitution Bench held that under the scheme of distribution of legislative powers between the States and the Union, the power to legislate in respect of primary or secondary education is exclusively vested in the States. It further held that in exercise of this power the State can prescribe the medium of instruction.

Citing the above-mentioned case, the court in the present matter interpreted that:

“The Constitution Bench, however, has not held that this power of the State to prescribe the medium of instruction in primary or secondary schools can be exercised in contravention of the rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The Constitution Bench has only held that if the medium of instruction has a direct bearing or impact on the determination of standards in institutions of higher education, the legislative power can be exercised by the Union to prescribe a medium of instruction. Prescribing the medium of instruction in schools to be mother tongue in the primary school stage in classes I to IV has, however, no direct bearing and impact on the determination of standards of education, and will affect the fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.”

The Court also considered the opinion of experts in the field of the education. These experts unanimously opined that that children studying in classes I to IV in the primary school can learn better if they are taught in their mother tongue. However, despite this contrary opinion of the experts, the court went on to hold that the State cannot stipulate as a condition for recognition of a school that the medium of instruction for children studying in classes I to IV in minority schools protected under Articles 29(1) and 30(1) of the Constitution and in private unaided schools enjoying the right to carry on any occupation under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution would be the mother tongue of the children as such stipulation.

Thus the court quite rightly gave an upper hand to fundamental rights over the opinion of the experts in the field of education.

In the next post, we will discuss the remaining two questions along with my opinion on the whole issue.

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

---

[1] Article 29 (1) – Protection of interests of minorities – Any section of the citizens residing in the territory of India or any part thereof having a distinct language, script or culture of its own shall have the right to conserve the same.

[2] Article 30 (1) – Right of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions – All minorities, whether based on religion or language, shall have the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice.