SHRI SANTOSH KUMAR AND ORS. versus THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT AND ANR.

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 139 · Decided: 04-10-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KULDIP SINGH · Disposal: Case Allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

SHRI SANTOSH KUMAR AND ORS. 
v. 
THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCES 
DEVELOPMENT AND ANR. 
OCTOBER 4, 1994 
[KULDIP SINGH AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950: 
A 
B 
Miele 351-Eighth Schedule-Language~nclusion of Sanskrit as C 
elective subject in syllabus of Central Board of Secondary Education--Court's 
direction regarding-Importance of Sanskrit in national ethos discussed. 
Secularism-Teaching of Sanskrit alone as elective subject is not 
against secularism. 
Education--lmportance of Education discussed. 
D 
In these petitions the qnestion for consideration is whether Sanskrit, 
which is one of the langnages specified in Eighth Schedule of the Constitu-
tion, is required to he included in the syllabus of the Central Board of 
Secondary Education as an elective subject so far as teaching in secondary E 
schools is concerned. On behalf of the Central Board of Secondary Educa-
tion it was contended that if Sanskrit were to he included as an elective 
subject, Arabic and Persian shall also have to he so done. 
Allowing the writ petitions, this Court 
F 
HELD : 1. Teaching of Sanskrit alone as an elective subject can in 
no way he regarded as against secularism. Because secularism is not 
anti-thesis of religious devoutness and sanskrit is the binding force for the 
different people of the country and is also embodiment of Indian cnltnre 
and civilisation. Indeed, our Constitntion reqnires giving of fillip to G 
Sanskrit because of what has been stated in Article 351, in which while 
dealing with the duty of the Union to promote the spread of IDndl, It has 
been provided that it would draw, whenever necessary or desirable, for Its 
vocabulary, primarily on Sanskrit. Encouragement to Sanskrit l_s also 
necessary because of It being one of the languages inclnded in the Eighth 
Schedule. (147-C, 146-E, 147-DI . 
H 
139 
140 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A 
2. Learning or Sanskrit is undoubtedly necessary for protection or 
our heritage. The stream of our culture would get dried if we were to 
discourage the study of Sanskrit. Without the learning of Sanskrit It is not 
possible to decipher the Indian philosophy on which our culture and 
heritage are based. In view of Importance of Sanskrit for nurturing our 
B cultural heritage, because of which even the official education policy has 
highlighted the need of study of Sanskrit, making of Sanskrit alone as an 
elective subject, while not conceding this status to Arabic and/or Persian, 
would not In any way militate against the basic tenet of secularism. 
Accordingly, the Central Board of Secondary Education is directed to 
include Sanskrit as an elective subject in the syllabus by making necessary 
C amendment in the Syllabus. [142-B, F, 147-E, Fl 
S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, [1994] 3 S.C.C. 1, referred to. 
Justice H.R. Khanna, 'The Spirit of Secularism in 'Secularism and 
India: DiJlemmas and Challenges' Edited by Shri MM Sankhdhar; referred 
D to. 
The Report of the San;;krit Commission 1957, referred to. 
3. It has been well recognised that It Is the education which lays the 
foundation for a full and Intense life and so the education must carefully 
E keep alive the spark of curiosity and fan It into a beautiful, bright Dame 
whenever It comes. It Is the education received in early stages which widens 
the contracts of child or youth with the surroundings or the world; and 
with every new and fruitful contacts with the world of things, the world of 
men and the world or Ideas, life of the young becomes richer and broader. 
F 
It is early education which seeks to broaden the mind by exposing the 
learner to the world of thought and reOectlon, which can inspire him with 
lofty idealism by giving him the glimpses of a good life which a worthy 
education is capable of bringing. [143-D to Fl 
Unnikrishnan v. State of A.P., [1993] 1 SCC 645, referred to. 
G 
1968 Education Policy, referred to. 
1986 Education Policy, referred to. 
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (C) No. 299 of 
H 1989. 
SANTOSH KR. v. HUMAN RESOURCES DEV. [HANSARIA, J.] 
141 
With 
A 
WRIT PETITION (C) NOS. 1303, 1184, 601,571 & 1041}89. 
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.) 
K.K. Venugopal and C.S. Vaidyanathan, K.V. Viswanathan, Mukul B 
Mudgal and Gopal K. Jain for the Petitioners in W.P. Nos. 299, 1184, 601, 
571 and 1041/89. 
K.K. Gupta for the Petitionei in W.P. 1303/89. 
N.N. Goswamy, T.C. Sharma, B.K. Prasad and Ms. A. Subhashini for
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.