USHA MEHTA AND ORS. versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 226 · Decided: 05-05-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RAJENDRA BABU · Disposal: Dismissed
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
USHA MEHTA AND ORS. 
V. 
ST ATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. 
MAY 5, 2004 
[RAJENDRA BABU, CJ., DR. AR. LAKSHMAN,\N 
AND G.P. MATHUR, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950-Article 29 & JO-Educational rights 
C of the linguistic minority-Educational policy of the State of Maharashtra-
Imposition of the regional Marathi language as a compulsory study in 
schools run by linguistic minorities-Held, not violative of the linguistic 
minority rights guaranteed under Articles 29 and 30 or any other 
provisions of the Constitution. 
D 
Maharashtra State Government took a policy decision to make 
study of Marathi language compulsory throughout the schools in that 
State. As a result, the English Medium Schools run by Gujarati 
linguistic minorities were compelled to teach four languages (Hindi, 
English, Marathi and mother tongue-Gujarati) as against the accepted 
E 'three-language formula'. 
According to the Petitioners, imposition of compulsory Marathi 
language is in violation of the fundamental right of the linguistic 
minority to establish an educational institution of 'their choice' under 
F Article 30(1) of the Constitution; that the 'choice' is meant to achieve 
not only the purpose of conserving the minority's mother tongue, 
language etc. but also giving their children a good general education; 
that the minority, in furtherance of their fundamental right under 
Article 29(1) read with Article 30(1) of the Constitution has a choice 
to teach the other subjects (Maths, Science etc.) through such medium-
G as commends to it and correspondingly a 'negative choice' not to teach 
such subjects in any such medium that does not commend to its 
perception of good general education; that not even national or public 
interest or any State necessity can justify or legitimize any encroachment 
on the fundamental rights of a minority guaranteed under Article 
H 30(1); that the impugned education policy of the State of Maharashtra 
226 
USHA MEHTA v. STATE 
227 
discriminates against the students belonging to linguistic minority, is A 
arbitrary and discriminatory and therefore liable to be struck down. 
Dismissing the Petitions and the connected Appeals, the Court 
HELD : I.I. The impugned policy decision cannot be held 
violative of the linguistic minority rights guaranteed under Articles 29 B 
and 30 or any other provisions of the Constitution. (237-D] 
1.2. The right of minorities to establish and administer educational 
institutions of 'their choice' under Article 30(1) read with Article 29(1) 
would include the right to have choice of medium of instruction. But C 
this exercise of 'choice of instructive language in schools by the 
linguistic minorities is subject to the reasonable regulation imposed by 
the concerned State. The State can impose reasonable regulation on the 
institutions covering Article 30 for protecting the larger interest of the 
State and the nation. 1234-H; 235-A, E-F] 
D 
In Rev. Sidhajbhai Sabhai v. State of Bombay, (1963] 3 SCR 837; 
St. Stephen's College v. University of Delhi, (1992] l SCC 558; TMA Pai 
Foundation v. State of Karnataka, [2002] 8 SCC 481, relied on. 
2. The impugned policy decision of the State of Maharashtra was E 
taken by keeping the larger interest of the State, because the official and 
common business is carried on in that State in Marathi language. A 
proper understanding ofMarathi language is necessary for easily carrying 
out the day-to-day affairs of the people living in the State of Maharashtra 
and also for proper carrying out of daily administration. Hence the F 
regulation imposed by the State of Maharashtra upon the linguistic 
minorities to teach its regional language is a reasonable one. (235-C, DJ 
DAV college, Bhatinda v. State of Punjab, (1971) 2 SCC 261 and 
DAV College v. State of Punjab, (1971] 2 SCC 269, referred to. 
3. A particular State can .validly take a policy decision to 
compulsorily teach its regional language. The impugned decision taken 
by the Government of Maharashtra is within the regulatory ambit of 
Article 30. It is a reasonable one, which is conducive to the needs and 
G 
larger interest of State. (235-F, G) 
H 
228 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A 
English Medium Students· Parents Association v. State of Karnataka 
and Others, 119941 I SCC 550, relied on. 
4. It is difficult to accept the proposition advanced by the 
Petitioners that minority character would only be protected by learning 
B Gujarati as a First or Second language.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.