ENGLISH MEDIUM STUDENTS PARENT ASSOCIATION versus STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.

Citation: [1993] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 934 · Decided: 08-12-1993 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.N. VENKATACHALIAH · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
ENGLISH MEDIUM STUDENTS PARENTS ASSOCIATION 
v. 
STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. 
DECEMBER 8, 1993 
B 
[M.N. VENKATACHALIAH, C.J. AND S. MOHAN, J.) 
Constitution of India-Articles 14, 29, 30, 39 (f) and 350A-<J.O. No. 
87 PRU SE BHA 88, Bangalore dated 19.06.1989 passed by Government of 
Kamataka-Language Policy in Educational Institution-Courts not to inter-
C fere-<Jovemment Policy making mother tongue as medium of instruction 
from 1st to 4th standards-Kannada made. as optional subject for non-kan-
nada speaking students-:No violation of Art. 29 or Jo-Policy upheld being 
in consonance with Article 350 A. 
D 
The Government of Karnataka for the promotion of Kannada lan-
guage, enunciated a policy in G.O. No. 87 PRU SE BHA 88, Bangalore 
dated 19.06.1989. The validity of the G.O. is questioned in the writ petition 
and appeals on the ground that it is violative of Articles 29 and 30 of the 
Constitution of India. It was contended that it is violative of Article 14 of 
the Constitution in so far as equal opportunity is not provided, in that, 
E students belonging to minority communities are discriminated against. It 
is urged that the infringement of right guaranteed under Article 350-A is 
apparent on the face of the impugned order as it prevents linguistic 
minority group to avail the opportunity of choices of languages, that the 
G.O. throws an undue burden on the students since the children are 
p 
obliged to study three languages from the primary school stage itself. 
Accordingly, a writ of mandamus was prayed for directing not to enforce 
the order in question. 
The Respondents State submitted that the G.O. is only a regulatory 
measure to bring about academic discipline. Having regard to the fact that 
G the minority institutions exist in the State of Karnataka it is obligatory on 
the part of these institutions to impart knowledge of Kannada; that it is 
the regional language of the State; that the G.O. removes the compulsory 
element during the primary stage as is required to the provided under 
Article 350-A and that there is no violation of either Article 29 or 30 nor 
H even Article 14 of the Constitution. 
934 
STUDENTS PARENTS ASSN. v. STATE 
935 
Dismissing the matters, this Court 
Held : 1.1. The element of compulsion at the primary stage is no 
longer there because the G.O. is unequivocal when it says from 1st to 4th 
A 
standards mother tongue will be the medium of instruction, only one 
language from Appendix-I will be compulsory subject of study. from 3rd B 
standard onwards Kannada will be an optional subject for non-Kannada 
speaking students. It is to be taught on a voluntary basis, there being no 
examination at the end of the year in Kannada language. This Part of the 
G.O. is clearly in consonance with Article 350-A of the Constitution of 
India. [946-E-F] 
General Secretary, Linguistic Minorities Protection Committee v. State 
of Kamataka, AIR (1989) Kar 226, apprc,ved. 
c 
1.2. All educational experts are uniformly of the opinion that pupils 
should begin their schooling through the medium of their mother toi.lgue. D 
The basic knowledge can easily be gathered through the mother tongue. 
When the pupils -comes of age and reaches the Sth standard level, the 
second language is introduced. The child who has not taken Kannada as 
a first language is required to take it as a second language. ·At the 
secondary stage the three language formula is introduced. However, in 
cases of non-Kannada speaking students grace marks upto 15 are E 
awarded. Certainly, it cannot be said that a student studying in a school 
from Karnataka need not know the regional language. It should be the 
endeavour of.every State to promote the regional language of the State. In 
fact, the Government of Kamataka has done commendably well in passing 
this G.O. [947-F-H, 948-A-B] 
F 
DA.V. College Bathinda v. State of Punjab, [1971]Supp. SCR 677, 
distinguished; 
.1.3. Where.the State by means of the impugned G.O. desires to bring 
about academic discipline as a regulatory measure it is a matter of policy. G 
The State knows how best to implement the language policy. It is not for 
the Court to interfere. (950-C] 
Hindi Hitrakshak Samiti and Ors. v. Union of India, [1990) l SCR 588, 
relied on. 
H 
936 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993] SUPP. 3 S.C.R .. 
A 
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (C) No. 536 of 1991. 
(UnJa Article 32 of the Con~titutilJll uf India.) 
Mch Ram, Sudama Ojha and Dr. l\faya Rao for the Appellants. 
B
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.