LexHINDI HITRAKSHAK SAMITI AND ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B q HINDI_HITRAKSHAK SAMIT! AND ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. FEBRUARY 26, 1990 [SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, CJ, K.N. SAIKIA AND M.M. PUNCHHI, JJ.] Constitution of India, 1950: Articles 29(2) and 32-Non-holding of pre-medical and pre-dental examinations in Hindi or other regional languages-Whether amounts to denial of admission on grounds of language-Whether violative of Fundamental Rights-Writ for direc- tion to conduct examination in particular language-Whether appro- priate remedy. A'Writ Petition was filed in this Court praying for a direction to the respondents to hold pre-medical and pre-dental examination in Hindi D and other regional languages. It was contended that pre-medical studies in medical and dental examination should be permitted in Hindi and other regional languages and not in English alone, that admission should not be refused and/or examinations should not be held in English alone if the examinees or the E entrants sought to appear in Hindi or other regional languages, and that by not holding the examinations in Hindi or other regional languages, there was a breach of Article 29(2). Dismissing the writ petition as withdrawn, the Court, F HELD: 1.1 The jurisdiction conferred on the Supreme Court under Article 32 is an important and integral part of the Indian Con- stitution but violation of a fundamental right is the sine qua non for seeking enforcement of those rights by the Supreme Court. [591D-EJ 1.2 Not holding entrance examination in any particular language, G be it Hindi or regional language cannot amount to denial of admission on the ground of language. Every educational i11stitution has right to determine or set out its method of education and conditions of examina- tion and studies provided these do not directly or indirectly have any casual connection with violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution. It may be that Hindi or other regional languages H are more appropriate medium of imparting education to very many and 588 y • \?----- y .- ' \ HITRAKSHAK SAMITI v. U.0.1. IMUKHARJI, C.J.J 589 it may be appropriate and proper to hold the examinations, entrance or otherwise, in any particular regional or Hindi Language, or it may he that Hindi or other regional language because of development of the .language, is not yet appropriate medium to transmute or test the knowledge or capacity that could be had in medical and dental disci- plines. It is a matter of formulation of policy by the State or educational authorities in-charge of any particular situation. [591E, G & H 592A-B] 1.3 Where the existence of a fundamental right has to be est- ablished by acceptance of a particular policy or a course of action for which there is no legal compulsion or statutory imperative, and on which there are. dive!gent views, the same cannot be sought to .be enforced by Article 32 of the Constitution. Article 32 of the Constitution cannot be a means to indicate policy preference. [5928-C] 1.4 The actions following from non-acceptance of any policy pers- pective cannot amount to direct and casual violation of the fundamental right of the citizens guaranteed under the Constitution of India. Court is not the forum to adjudicate upon the questions ~ Jl.Olicy unless such a policy is the direct mandate of the CQnstitution. [592D] 1.5 Whether in particular facts and circumstances of the instant case, admission to medical or dental Institution by conducting examina- tion in Hindi or other regional languages would be appropriate or desir- able or not, is a matter on which debate is possible and the acceptance of one view over the other involves a policy decision. It cannot be appropriately dealt with by this Court, and order under Article 32 of the · Constitution in those circumstances would not be an appropriate remedy. [592H, 593A] A B c D E CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No. F 428 of 1989. (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India). Dr. L.M. Singhvi, N. Wazir and D. Bhandari for the Petitioners. G Rajiv Dutta for the R~spondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, CJ. This is .an application under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for issue of a writ of mandamus H A B c 590 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1990] 1 S.C.R. directing the Central Government to hold-pre-medical and pre-dental entrance examinations in Hindi and other regional languages as, according
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.