LexUNION OF INDIA & ORS. versus MURASOLI MARAN
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
314
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
v.
MURASOLI MARAN
December 6, 1976
[A. N. RAY, C.J., M. H. BEG AND JASWANT SI:NGH, JJ.l
Constitution of India, Articles 254, 343, 344, 349 and 351-"Compulsory i11
service training" in Hindi as__part of duty to all Central Government emp/oyces-
Presidential Order dated 27th April 1960-Va/idity-Officia/ Lan!{ulilges Act 1963,
s. 3(4), scope of.
Presidential Orders dated 27th April 1960 and the various orders and circu-
lars issued pursuant thereto by the Home Ministry, P & T Department and Rail-
way Board, compelling attendance in "Hindi in service training" as part of duty
and providing for penal consequences for non-attendance were quashed by the
Madras High Court as being inconsistent with s. 3 of the Official Languages Act,
1963 as amended by Act 1 of 1968 which was law made by Parliament under
Art. 343 (3) of the Constitution.
In appeals to this Court on certificates, the appellant-Union contended :
(i) The instructions were aimed at promoting the policy of the constitutional
revisions that Hindi should be the official language of the Union; (ii) No em-
ployee was placed at a disadvantage even if one could not qualify oneself in
Hindi becaus~ no penalty was prescribed for an employee who did not attain
any particular standard; and (iii) The Government was within its rights to issue
orders obliging its employees to take training in Hindi language, so that ulti-
mately when Hindi became the language of the Union they could perform their
duty in an efficient and smooth manner. The respondents reiterated their stand,
namely, (i) Article 343 of the Constitution is transitional and directions of the
President are limited to the period of 15 years from the commencement of the
Constitution in view of the provision in Articles 343, 344(1), 344(2)(a) and (b),
344 (3 ), 344 (6) indicating that directions should relate ·to purposes of sub-
clauses (a) to (e) of Article 344(2); (ii) When the Official Languages Act 1963
embodied the field covere4 by Parliamentary legislation, the Presid~ntial Order
would not have any effect; (iii) The Presidential Order is inconsistent with s. 9
( 4) of the Official Languages Act 1963 as amended in 1968 and to that extent
void; and (iv) Under s. 3(4) of the Official Languages Act 1963, persons were
not to be placed at a disadvantage on the ground that they do not have profi-
ciency in both the languages, namely, English and Hindi.
Dismissing the writ petitions and allowing the appeals,
HELD : (1) The Presidential Orders dated 27th April 1960 and the various
orders and circulars issued by Home Ministry, P & T Department and Railway
Board pursuant thereto are valid. [323H]
(2) The Presidential Order w_as validly made ai:d t~ere has b~en and ~an
be no challenge to it.
The Pt es1d~nt Order keeps m vie~ the ultimate .ob1ect
to make the Hindi language as official languarr·. 'mt takes mto note the c1Tcum-
stances prevailing in our country and considers i~ desirable that the change should
be a gradual one and due. regard should b7 g_iven to. the just claims and
the
interests of persons belongmg to the non-f:!1i;id1 speakm~ a;eas. The i;urpose of
the Presidential Order is to promote the spmt of the Hmdt language and to pro-
vide the Central Government employees the facilities to take training in Hindi
language when they are in service. [322F-G]
(3) The provisions in Art. 344 indicate that if there is a Second <=:om.mission
at the expiration of ten Y.ears ~rom the commenc~ment <?f th.e Const1t1~10n, the
President may after constderatton of the report, ts~ue d1Tect1ons at th_ end of
fifteen
y~ars. The provisions containe~ in Art. 344(6) are not 7xhausted by
using it once.
The President can use 1t on more than one accas1C!n.
Fnrther
the effect of the power used cannot be said to be exhausted on the eXPlfY of fifteen
·~
UNION OF INDIA V. MURASOLI MARAN
315
years. The Presidel)tial Order which was issued in 1960 continues to be in force
A
and cannot be said to have exhausted itself at the end of fifteen years from the
commencement of the Constitution. It would be strange that the steps nece..<sary
for the change should be given up at the expiry of fifteen years because what
is said to be a switch over from English to Hindi has not been possible and
Parliament provided by law for the continued use of the English language for
particular purposes specified in that law.
[322D-F]
( 4) Article 344 is eExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.