LexJAVED NIAZ BEG AND ANR. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E F G H JAVED NIAZ BEG AND ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. April 17, 1980 [V, R. KRISHNA IYER, 0. CliINNAPPA REDDY AND A. P. SEN, JJ.J Language /01mula-Competition to All India Civil Services-Paper / on Indian Languagts made optional but not compulsory for candidates hailing from the North Eastern States/Union Territories of Arunachal Pradesh, Manipur, Meglia/aya, Mizoram and Noga/and-Whether the Notification by the U.P.S.C. dt. 17~3·79 discrimi11atory and offends Article 14 of the Constitution. Dismissing the Writ Pe~itions, the. QJurt . ' HJ;',W; !.. Language is speech, sentiment, life, literature and other dear values rolled into one and that is why when State policy on language goes awry explosive tensions erupt and Courts cannot allow )egalism to over-ride realism when asked to quash some sensitive linguistic forniula with emotive overtones. The realisation that language is at the root of culture, that com- munities sometimes sacrifice their very existence for survival of their mother tongue and that tolerance and mutual accommodation on the linguistic front are integral to national integration must persuade the Court to keep its hands off the delicate strategic policy of the State relating to the people's langaage. Indeed, the rich diversity of India and the indispensable unity of the nation make it a linguistic imperative that a spirit of generosity to territorial com- munities especially minorities . without political pull, is of the quintessence of our Constitutiono! policy. f,35 D, B-OJ 2. Equality before the law is the kernel of our constitutional order. But equality is not a static, rigid formal or pedantic concept. A sensitised social scientist will easily agree that.alleq~ithety is ?ynanuW·c, flexible,. crea 73 tive 5 , 0 anHd --( developmentally sensitive, espec1 y m Third orld conditions. [ - , 736 A] / 3. The integrity of India is a supreme value. The languages of India are ®arest to the, people who speak them. the North Eastern StatesfUnion Territories of Arunachal Pradesh, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram and Naga- land have handicaps in the matter of language. The Eighth Schedule to the Constitution has set out the prominent languages of India which are written and spoken by large populations between Kashmir and Kanyakumari. 11ut "L this rich tapestry, for its very beauty, must afford equal opportunity for those F linguistically less advanced groups who are outside· the Eighth schedule and may suffer serious disabilities if forced to take examinations in those languages. Logically. an option for them to take or not to take Paper I on Indian Ulllguages is a facility which puts them on par with the rest. Once it is understood that eqaalisation is part of the dynamics of equality, this concession is not contravention of equality but conducive to equality. It helps a handi- capped groups and does not hamper those who are alread. [736 H. 737 A-Cl • 'y- • :J. N. BEG v. UNION (Krishna Iyer, !.) 735 The exemption iranted will encourage disabled groups into integrating themselves with the nation. More and more of successful candidates from these border areas coming into the mainstream of our Central Public Services is a tribute to national integration and democratic foundation. On the other hand, Procrustean equality by insistence on the linguistic 'have-nots' being mated on a par with the linguistic 'haves' is productive of inequality. Both equalisation as a measure of equality and national integration as a homogenisa· lion of the people of the country, require the step that has been taken. There is no discriminatioi:i in this. On the cotµrary there is a sensitive appreciation " of . the situ_ation prevailing in those states which operates for a better egalite among unequals. [737 CE] ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition Nos. 660-661/1980. (Under Article 32 of the Constitution). R. K. Jain for the Petitioner. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by: KRISHNA IYER, J. Language is speech, sentiment, life, literature and° other dear values rolled into one and that is why when State policy on language goes awry explosive tensions erupt and courts cannot allow legalism to over-ride realism when asked tp quash some sensi- tive linguistic formula with el)lotive overtones. This prefatory caveat and its profoubd implications must be appreciated before we eat the forbidden fruit of policy-making by striking down the Cen
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.