U.P. HINDI SAHITYA SAMMELAN versus STATE OF U.P.

Citation: [2014] 13 S.C.R. 675 · Decided: 04-09-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RAJENDRA MAL LODHA · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2014] 13 S.C.R. 675 
U.P. HINDI SAHITYASAMMELAN 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. 
(Civil Appeal No. 459 of 1997) 
SEPTEMBER 04, 2014 
A 
B 
[R. M. LODHA, CJI, DIPAK MISRA, MADAN B. LOKUR, 
KURIAN JOSEPH AND S. A. BOBDE, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950 - Part XVII; Arts. 345 and C 
347 - Constitutional scheme of Part XVII -Ambit and scope 
of Arts. 345 and 347 - Discussed. 
Constitution of India, 1950 - Part XVII; Arts. 345 and 
347-1951 Act was enacted by the State Legislature to provide 0 
for adoption of Hindi as the language to be used for official 
purposes and other matters of the State of Uttar Pradesh -
Subsequently, the 1989 Amendment Act was enacted to 
amend 1951 Act whereby s.3 was inserted after s.2 in 1951 
Act providing for Urdu language as second official language E 
for such purposes as notified by the State Government from 
time to time -. Whether it was constitutional for the U.P. 
Legislative Assembly to declare Urdu as the second official 
language through the 1989 Amendment Act once it had 
declared Hindi as the official language in 1951 under Art. 
F 
345 - Held: Merely because Hindi was mentioned explicitly 
or separately and it was adopted as official language by the 
State, it cannot be said that the Constitution ,'oreclosed the 
State Legislature's option to adopt any other language in use 
in the State as official language - Nothing in Art. 345 barred G 
declaring one or more of the languages in use in the State, 
in addition to Hindi, as the second official language- Neither 
insertion of s. 3 nor the impugned notification in pursuance 
of the above provision notifying Urdu as the second 
675 
H 
676 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 13 S.C.R. 
A language for the seven specified purposes was 
unconstitutional- Uttar Pradesh Official Language Act, 1951 
- s.3- Uttar Pradesh Official Language (Amendment) Act, 
1989. 
B 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD:1.1. Merely because Hindi is mentioned 
explicitly or separately and it is adopted as official 
language by the State, it cannot be said that the 
Constitution forecloses the State Legislature's option to 
C adopt any other language in use in the State as official 
language. Nothing in Article·345 of the Constitution bars 
declaring one or more of the languages in use in the State, 
in addition to Hindi, as the second official language. 
[Paras 26 and 27][693-D-E] 
D 
1.2. The use of the word "may" in Article 345 is not 
without significance. It indicates that State has 
discretion in adopting the language or languages in use 
in the State and so .also Hindi. Such discretion can be 
E exercised any number of times by the State Legislature 
as it deems proper. The only restriction to such 
legislative power is in Article 347 in a given situation. 
[Para 31][695-D-E] 
1.3. Article 345 deals with the power of the State 
F Legislature while Article 347 refers to the power of the 
President. These two provisions prescribe a different 
procedure for making law or issuing directions for 
recognising a language as official language. The 
G requirement, "a substantial portion of the population of 
a State dEtsire the use of any language spoken by them 
to be recognized by that State" in Article 347 is not a 
requirement under Article 345 for the State Legislature 
to enact law adopting the language as official language 
H of the State, which is in use in the State. The requirement 
U.P. HINDI SAHITYASAMMELAN v. STATE OF U.P. 
677 
of Article 347 cannot be read as a necessary requirement A 
for the State Legislature to exercise its power under 
Article 345. [Para 37][697·F·H; 698·A·B] 
1.4. There is no merit in the argument that the power 
of the State Legislature under Article 345 gets exhausted 8 
after a single use. Law and language are both organic 
in their mode of development. In India, these are evolving 
through the process of accepting legitimate aspirations 
of the speakers of different languages. Indian language 
laws are not rigid but accommodative - the object being c 
to secure linguistic secularism. Neither insertion of 
Section 3 in the 1989 Amendment Act nor the impugned 
notification in pursuance of the above provision notifying 
Urdu as the second language for seven purposes is 
unconstitutional. [Paras 43, 44][701-C·F] 
o . 
Sri Nasiruddin v. 
Stat~ Transport Appellate 
Tribunal (1975) 2 SCC 671 - held inapplicable. 
''The Framing of India's Constitution -A Study" by 
Shri B. Shiva Rao (The Project Committee 
E 
Chairman); Indian Constitutio
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.