LexSTATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR. versus ASSOCIATED MANAGEMENT OF (GOVERNMENT RECOGNISED ..:.. UNAIDED - ENGLISH MEDIUM) PRIMARY & SECONDARY SCHOOLS & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2014] 5 S.C.R. 1104 A STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR. V .. ASSOCIATED MANAGEMENT OF (GOVERNMENT RECOGNISED ..:.. UNAIDED - ENGLISH MEDIUM) PRIMARY & SECONDARY SCHOOLS & ORS. B (Civil Appeal Nos.5166;5190 of 2013' etc) MAY 06, 2014 [R.M. LODHA, CJI, A. K. PATNAIK, SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, DIPAK MISRA AND FAKKIR C MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, JJ.] Constitution of India, 1950: Art. 350-A - Imposition of mother tongue as a medium D of instruction in all Government recognized schools in qlass I to IV in State of Karnataka - G.O. dated 29.4.1994 - Partly quashed by High Court - Held: The expression 'mother tongue' in Art. 350A means the mother tongue of the linguistic minority group in a particular State and this would obviously E mean the language of that particular linguistic minority group - Mother tongue in the context of the Constitution would, therefore, mean the language of the linguistic minority in a State and it is the parent or the guardian of child who will decide what the mother tongue of child is - However, the Constitution nowhere provides that mother tongue is the F language which the child is comfortable with, and while this meaning of "mother tongue" may be a possible meaning of the 'expression', this is not the meaning of mother tongue in Art. 350A nor in any other provision of the Constitution and, therefore, Court cannot either expand the power of the State G or restrict a fundamental right by saying that mother tongue is the language which the child is comfortable with - Further, State has no power under Art. 350A to compel the linguistic minorities to choose their mother tongue only as a medium H 1104 STATE OF KARNATAKA v. ASSO. MGT. OF PRIM. & 1105 SEC. SCHOOLS of instruction in primary schools - Government of Karnataka A Order dated 29. 4. 1994. Arts. 14 and 19 - Right of a student, a parent or a citizen to choose medium of instruction at primary stage - Held: Right to freedom of speech and expression under Art. 19(1)(a) 8 includes the freedom of a child to be educated at the primary stage of school in a language of the choice of the child and the State cannot impose controls on "Such choice just because it thinks that it will be more beneficial for the child if he is taught in the primary stage of school in his mother tongue - C A child or on his behalf his parent or guardian, has a right to freedom of choice with regarc1 to the medium of instruction in which he would like to be educated at the primary stage in school. Arts. 14, 19, 21 and 21-A - Imposition of mother tongue D as a medium of instruction at primary stage - Held: If State determines by law that in schools where free education is provided under Art. 21A, the medium of instruction would be in the mother tongue or in any language, the child cannot claim as of right under Art. 21 or Art. 21A that he has a right E to choose the medium of instruction in which the education should be imparted to him by the State - Therefore, a child, and on his behalf his parent or guardian, has the right to choose the medium of instruction at the primary school stage under Art. 19(1)(a) and not under Art. 21 or ,Art. 21A. F Arts. 19(1)(a), 29 and 30 - Imposition of mother tongue as a medium of instructions at primary stage - Held: Imposition of mother tongue affects the fundamental rights under Arts. 19, 29 and 30 - State cannot stipulate as a condition for recognition that the medium of instruction for G children studying in classes I to IV in minority schools protected under Arts. 29(1) and 30(1) and in private unaided schools enjoying the right to carry on any occupation under Art. 19(1 )(g) would be the mother tongue of the children - Government recognized schools will not only include H 1106 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 5 S.C.R. A government aided schools but also unaided schools which have been granted re.cognition. The instant appeals and the writ petition involved the legality of the Karnataka Gov~rnment Order dated 8 29.4.1994 whereby it was provided, inter alia, that medium of instruction in the State should be mother tongue or Kaannada with effect from the academic year 1994-95 in all Government recognized schools in Classes I to IV. The writ petition challenging the Government Order dated 29.4.1994 was allowed by a Full Bench of the High Court. C It quashed clauses 2, 3, 6 and 8 of the G.O. dated 29.4.1994 and upheld rest of the G.O. When the mattes cam
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.