Holding

The language policy order is constitutionally valid and does not violate Articles 14, 29, 30 or 350A; the writ petition is dismissed.

Summary

The Supreme Court examined a writ petition challenging Karnataka's Government Order No. 87 PRU SE BHA 88, which mandated mother‑tongue as the medium of instruction in classes I‑IV and made Kannada optional from class III for non‑Kannada speakers, with Kannada becoming a compulsory second language from class V. The petitioners argued that the order violated Articles 14, 29, 30 and 350A of the Constitution by imposing an undue burden on linguistic minorities. The Court held that the order does not compel Kannada at the primary stage, aligns with Article 350A’s requirement for mother‑tongue instruction, and is a permissible policy measure to promote the regional language. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed and the related civil appeals were also dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the Government Order violates Article 14 of the Constitution by denying equal opportunity to linguistic minorities.
Whether the Order infringes Articles 29 and 30 by compelling minority institutions to teach Kannada.
Whether the Order contravenes Article 350A’s mandate for mother‑tongue instruction at the primary level.
Whether the State may, as a matter of policy, prescribe Kannada as an optional or compulsory language in the prescribed manner.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. 14, s. 29, s. 30, s. 350A, s. 39(f)

Subjects

language policymother tongue instructionminority rightsconstitutional validityKarnatakathree‑language formulaArticle 14Article 29Article 30Article 350A

Judgment

A ENGLISH MEDIUM STUDENTS PARENTS ASSOCIATION
v.
STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.

DECEMBER 8, 1993
B
[M.N. VENKATACHALIAH, C.J. AND S. MOHAN, J.)

Constitution of India-Articles 14, 29, 30, 39 (f) and 350A-<J.O. No.
87 PRU SE BHA 88, Bangalore dated 19.06.1989 passed by Government of
Kamataka-Language Policy in Educational Institution-Courts not to inter-
C fere-<Jovemment Policy making mother tongue as medium of instruction
from 1st to 4th standards-Kannada made. as optional subject for non-kan-
nada speaking students-:No violation of Art. 29 or Jo-Policy upheld being
in consonance with Article 350 A.

D The Government of Karnataka for the promotion of Kannada lan-
guage, enunciated a policy in G.O. No. 87 PRU SE BHA 88, Bangalore
dated 19.06.1989. The validity of the G.O. is questioned in the writ petition
and appeals on the ground that it is violative of Articles 29 and 30 of the
Constitution of India. It was contended that it is violative of Article 14 of
the Constitution in so far as equal opportunity is not provided, in that,
E students belonging to minority communities are discriminated against. It
is urged that the infringement of right guaranteed under Article 350-A is
apparent on the face of the impugned order as it prevents linguistic
minority group to avail the opportunity of choices of languages, that the
G.O. throws an undue burden on the students since the children are
p obliged to study three languages from the primary school stage itself.
Accordingly, a writ of mandamus was prayed for directing not to enforce
the order in question.

The Respondents State submitted that the G.O. is only a regulatory
measure to bring about academic discipline. Having regard to the fact that
G the minority institutions exist in the State of Karnataka it is obligatory on
the part of these institutions to impart knowledge of Kannada; that it is
the regional language of the State; that the G.O. removes the compulsory
element during the primary stage as is required to the provided under
Article 350-A and that there is no violation of either Article 29 or 30 nor
H even Article 14 of the Constitution.
934
STUDENTS PARENTS ASSN. v. STATE 935

Dismissing the matters, this Court A
Held : 1.1. The element of compulsion at the primary stage is no
longer there because the G.O. is unequivocal when it says from 1st to 4th
standards mother tongue will be the medium of instruction, only one
language from Appendix-I will be compulsory subject of study. from 3rd B
standard onwards Kannada will be an optional subject for non-Kannada
speaking students. It is to be taught on a voluntary basis, there being no
examination at the end of the year in Kannada language. This Part of the
G.O. is clearly in consonance with Article 350-A of the Constitution of
India. [946-E-F]
c
General Secretary, Linguistic Minorities Protection Committee v. State
of Kamataka, AIR (1989) Kar 226, apprc,ved.

1.2. All educational experts are uniformly of the opinion that pupils
should begin their schooling through the medium of their mother toi.lgue. D
The basic knowledge can easily be gathered through the mother tongue.
When the pupils -comes of age and reaches the Sth standard level, the
second language is introduced. The child who has not taken Kannada as
a first language is required to take it as a second language. ·At the
secondary stage the three language formula is introduced. However, in
cases of non-Kannada speaking students grace marks upto 15 are E
awarded. Certainly, it cannot be said that a student studying in a school
from Karnataka need not know the regional language. It should be the
endeavour of.every State to promote the regional language of the State. In
fact, the Government of Kamataka has done commendably well in passing
this G.O. [947-F-H, 948-A-B] F
DA.V. College Bathinda v. State of Punjab, [1971]Supp. SCR 677,
distinguished;

.1.3. Where.the State by means of the impugned G.O. desires to bring
about academic discipline as a regulatory measure it is a matter of policy. G
The State knows how best to implement the language policy. It is not for
the Court to interfere. (950-C]

Hindi Hitrakshak Samiti and Ors. v. Union of India, [1990) l SCR 588,
relied on. H
936 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993] SUPP. 3 S.C.R ..

A ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (C) No. 536 of 1991.

(UnJa Article 32 of the Con~titutilJll uf India.)

Mch Ram, Sudama Ojha and Dr. l\faya Rao for the Appellants.

B B.V. Acharya, M.Veerappa, K.H. Nobin Singh for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

MOHAN, J. All these cases can be dt:ait with under a common
judgment since the issue involved is the same. We will first take up the writ
C petition.

The Government of Karnataka, wedded to the cause of promotion
of Kannada, appointed a Committee of six persons with Dr. V.K. Gokak
as the Chairman and referred the following questions :

D (1) Should Sanskrit remain as the subject for study iti the school
syllabus?

· (2) It so, how to retain it without its being an alternative for ·
Kannada?

E (3).Would it be proper to have Kannada as a compulsory subject
as per the Three Language Formula and should the option of
selecting the remaining two languages be left to students themsel-
ves?

The Committee submitted its report dated 27th January, 1981 which
F is popularly known as Dr. Gokak Committee Report. The gist of the
recommendations is as under :

(1) Kannada should-be introduced as a compulsory subject for all
children for 3rd Standard ;
G (2) Kannada should be the sole first language for the Higher
Secondary Schools (i.e., 8th, 9th and 10th Standards) carrying 150
marks, and this should be implemented for Kannada speaking
people from 1981-82 itself and in respect of others from 1986-87,
after taking necessary steps to teach Kannada to them from the
H 3rd standard from the academic year 1981-82 itself.
STUDENTS PARENTSASSN.1'. STATE(MOHAN,J.J 937

On a consideration of the abovesaid report, the State Government A
passed an order dated 30.4.82 which is to the following effect :

"ORDER NO. ED. 113 SOH 79, BANGALORE DATED 30TH
APRIL 1982.

Government have carefully examined the recommendations of B
the Committee and having regard to all aspects of the matter are
pleased to order as follows :

L At the Secondary School level, the language pattern to be
adopted will be as follows : -
c
A. First Language :

Kannada or Mother Tongue (Urdu, Tamil, Telugu, Marathi,
English, Hindi) to carry 150 marks.

B. Two other languages from the following: D
Kannada, Hindi, English, Sanskrit, Arabic, Persian, Urdu,
Tamil, Telugu, Marathi to carry 100 marks each.

Note : (1) Students offering a Language other than Kannada as
First Language will study as a compulsory Language and any one E
of the remaining languages (From Group B) both of which will be
examination subjects f'i/he S.S.L.C.

(2) Students offering Kannada as First language will take any
two of the above Languages (from B Group) except Kannada.
F
2. Students coming from outside the State and joining VIII, IX
or X standard and who have not studied any of the languages listed
as First Language may be allowed to take Additional English or
Hindi as First Language.
G
3. The teaching of Kannada from III Standard in Non-Kannada
Schools will commence from the academic year 1982-83 itself and
the Language pattern for the High Schools prescribed in para 1
above will come into effect from the academic year 1987-88.

4. Students joining VIII Standard from the academic year H
938 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A 1982-83 cannot take Sanskrit as First Language or as composite
First Language. They can take Sanskrit as Third Language. This
system will continue till the language pattern prescribed in para 1
above comes into force from the academic year 1987-88.

5. The Commissioner for public Instruction was requested to
B take necessary action in the matter immediately to implement the
above orders."

Since it was felt that the order dated 30th April, 1982 did not
· sufficiently reflect the aspirations of the Kannada speaking people, the
Government thought it expedient to place the entire matter before the
C State Legislature. The State Legislature resolved that in the High Schools
Kannada must be the sole First regional language carrying 125 marks. In
addition, a student might study any two languages carrying 100 marks each.
15 grace marks might be given for a period of 10 years belonging to
linguistic minority community who study Kannada as first regional language
D and also those who study Hindi and whose mother tongue is not Hindi to
enable the students whose mother tongue is not Kannada to learn Kanr.;•<ia
as the sole First language in High Schools. Government have taken st~ps
to start teaching Kannada from 3rd standard from this academic year i.e.
1982-83.

E In addition to the above it was also recommended that the Govern-
ment should take steps to start teaching Kannada from the first standard
itself from 1982-83.
\If
In accordance with the above Resolution, the State Government
made an order dated 20th of July, 1982. That order reads as follows :
F
"ORDER NO. ED 113 SOH 79, BANGALORE

DATED 20TH JULY, 1982.

Keeping in view the above Govt. are pleased to effect as follows:
G
1. At the Secondary School Level, the language pattern to be
adopted shall be as follows (from the academic year 1987-88) :

A. First Language : -

H · Kannada shall be the sole first language (to carry 125 marks)
S1UDENTS PARENTS ASSN. v. STA1E[MOHAN,J.] 939
·~,

B. Two other Language from the following : A

Urdu, Tamil, Telugu, Marathi, English, Hindi, Sanskrit, Arabic,
Persian, Malayalam and Kannada (to carry 100 marks each)

Note : - 15 grace marks shall be given for a period of 10 years,
(a) in the first language examination, to students whose mother B
tongue is not Kannada; and (b) in Hinqi examination to students
who study Hindi and whose mother tongue is noi Hindi.

2. Students coming from outside the State and joining VIII or
IX or X standard in the State of Karnataka and who did not study c
Kannada earlier may be permitted to take English or Hindi as first
language.

3. The teaching of Kannada from I standard in non-Kannada
schools will commence from the academic year 1982-83 itself and
... the language pattern for High Schools prescribed in para (1) above D
will come into force from the academic year 1987- 88.

4. Students joining VIII standard from the academic year 1982-
83 could not be permitted to take Sanskrit as First Language or
as a Composite First Language. They can, however, take Sanskrit
E
as Third Language. This will continue. till the language pattern
prescribed in para I takes effect from the academic year 1987-88.

Note : Para 4 above which corresponds to para 4 of Govt. Order
No. ED 113 SOH 79 dt. 30th April, 1982 shall not be given effect
to pending disposal of writ petitions Nos. 18882 to 18885 of 1982 F
in the High Court of Karnataka wherein operation of the cor-
responding para 4 of Government order dated 30th April, 1982
has been stayed.

5. The Commissioner for Public Instruction is requested to take
necessary action in the matter immediately. to give effect to the
G
above orders.

6. Separate orders will issue regarding constitution of the, High
Power Committee for effective implementation of the language
policy. H
940 SUPREME COURT REPORTS {1993) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A 7. The orders issued in Govt. Order No. ED 115 SOH dated
30.4.82 are hereby withdrawn. "

Pursuant to the abovesaid order, the Director of Public Instructions
issued a Circular dated 11.8.82 in the following terms :

B "All the non-teaching of Kannada schools in the State should
begin to teach Kannada language from the 1st standard in the year
1982-83 as per instructions contained in para 3 of the Government
Order. For that purpose the following periods of subjects and text
books and lessons for study are prescribed as under :

C 1. Periods : Five periods· a week i.e., two periods from work
experience, II periods for physical training and one for singing
education.

2. Text books : Kannada Bharathi.

D 3. Lessons for study : 1 to 16, 18 and 36 lessons.

4. Marks : This being a subject for examination, 100 marks are
fixed.

5. Marks giving : Marks giving and examination rules as prescribed
E for the 1st standard are made applicable to this."

Aggrieved by the abovesaid order dated 20th July, 1982 some of the
educational institutions (the respondents in the civil appeal) preferred writ
petitions in the High Court of Karnataka. It was contended that the order
was violative of the rights of minorities under Articles 29 and 30 of the
F Constitution of India. It was further contended that it was discriminatory
and violative of article 14 of the Constitution of India. Initially, when the
writ petitions came up for hearing before a Single Judge the matters were
referred to a Division Bench. The Division Bench by an order dated 27th
January, 1984 referred the abovesaid question to the Full Bench. The full
G Bench in General Secretary, L.M.P. Committee v. State of Kamataka, AIR
(1989) Karnataka 226 at 264, expressed its opinion on the three questions
as follows:

"(1) The Govt. Order dated 20th July, 1982 in so far it relates
to the making of study of Kannada as a compulsory subject to
H children belonging to linguistic minority groups from the first year
STUDENTS PARENTS ASSN. v. STATE [MOHAN, J.] 941

of the Primary School and compelling the Primary Schools estab- A
lished by Linguistic Minorities to introduce it as a compulsory
subject from the first year of the Primary School and also in so far
it compels the students joining High Schools to take Kannada as
the sole first language and compelling the high schools established
by linguistic minorities to introduce Kannada as the sole first B
language in the Secondary Schools, is violative of Articles 29(1)
and 30(1) of the Constitution.

(2) The Govt. Order dated 20.7.1982 in so far it relates to the
making of study of Kannada as a compulsory subject to children
belonging to linguistic minority groups from the first year of the C
Primary School and compelling the primary schools established by
linguistic minorities to introduce it as a compulsory subject from
the first year of the Primary School and also in so far it compels
the students joining High Schools to take Kannada as the sole first
language and compelling the High Schools established by linguistic D
minorities to introduce Kannada as the sole first language in the .
Secondary Schools, is violative of the pledge of equality guaranteed
under Article 14 of the Constitution.

(3) On the facts and· in the circumstances of the case, the
Circular dated 11.8.1982 issued by the Director of Public Instruc- E
tions of the State Government is violative of Arts. 14, 29(1) and
30(1)of the Constitution of India. ·

These petitions have to be posted before a Division Bench for
final disposal of the petitions." ·
F
'After rendering this opinion the matter was sent back to the Division
Bench for disposal in accordance with the opinion and accordingly the
cases were dismissed by a judgment dated 25.1.89. It is against this judg-
ment the State of Karnataka has come up in appeal in Civil Appeal nos.
2856-57 of 1989. After this judgment the Government of Karnataka enun- G
dated the policy in G.O. No. 87 PRU SE BHA 88. Bangalore dated 19.6.89
which is to the- following effect :

"In the circumstances explained in the preamble of this Govt.
Order, Govt., are pleased to order that the following language
policy shall be implemented in the primary and Secondary Schools H
942 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A pending final decision of the Supreme Court.

(i) From 1st Standard to IV the Standard, mother tongue will
be the medium of instruction, where it is expected that normally
only one language from Appendix-1 will be the compulsory subject
of study.
B
From III Standard onwards Kannada will be an optional subject
for. non-Kannada speaking students. This will not be taught on a
purely voluntary basis and it will not be at the cost of any other
instruction imparted in the school or any other school activity in
c . which all school children participate. There will be no examination
at the end of the year in Kannada language.

(ii) From the V Standard onwards, where, in the normal course
Ilnd language is introduced, the child has to study a second
language selected from Appendix-I which will be other than the
D first language, subject to the condition that the child who has not
taken Kannada as the first language will have to take Kannada as
the Second language.

From V Standard onwards provision will be made for the study
of the third language which will be other than language studied by
E
the Student as first and second languar;;e. This has to be chosen
from the list given in Appendix II.

Attendance in the third language class will be compulsory,
writing of the examination in the third language will also be
F compulsory, but from V to VII Standard it will not be obligatory
to pass the third language examination. No extra credit will be
given in rank, division, class etc. on account of the rank, division,
class etc. on account of the marks obtained in the third language
examination from 5th to 7th standard.

G (iii} At the Secondary stage, i.e. from VIII to X Standards,
three languages will be compulsory. First language carrying 125
marks, Second language carrying 100 marks and the third language
carrying 100 marks. It will be ,obligatory to pass .the examinations
conducted in all these 3 ~es, and one of them shall be
H Kannada.
"
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1993) SUPP. 3 ~.C.R.

A The validity of the G.O. is questioned in the writ petition on the
ground that it is violative of Articles 29 and 30 of the Co~stitution of India.
Further, it is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India in so far as
equal opportunity is not provided, i~ that, students belonging to minority
communities are discriminated against. The infringement of right guaran-
B ieed under Article 350-A of the Constitution of India is apparent on the
face of the impugned order as it prevents linguistic minority group to avail
the opportunity of choices of languages.

In so far as Kannada is made a compuls~ry language in spite of the
clear direction in the judgment of the Full Bench of the Karnataka High
C Court it is bad. The impugned order throws an undue burden on the
students since the children are obliged to study three languages from the
primary school stage itself. Accordingly, a writ of mandamus is prayed for
directing not to enforce the order in question.

D In support of the grounds urged in the writ petition learned counsel
for the petitioner would contend that Articles 29 and 30 must be read along
with Article 39{t) because as on today that directive principle has assumed
significance. If, therefore, the children are to be given proper opportunities
in relation to education no language should be imposed. It is the choice of
the parents to select the language for the child. Under the impugned order
E from 5th Standard onwards Kannada is made compulsory. That cannot be
done vis-a-vis linguistic minorities. In support of this reliance is placed on
DA. V. College etc. v. State of Punjab & Ors., (1971] Supp. SCR 688. Again
:.hen Punjabi was made the sole medium of instruction this Court struck
down such a provision-as seen from DA.V. College Bathinda, etc. v. State
p of Punjab & Ors., (1971] Supp. SCR 677. If as laid down in The Ahmedabad
·St. Xaviers College Society & Anr. etc. v. State of Gujarat & Anr., (1975] 1
SCR 173, the linguistic minority have a fundamental right to conserve its
language or culture. That cannot be interferred with and there cannot be
an element of force ·obliging the student to study another language. By
forcing to study Kannada there is a violation of Article 14. In so far as there
G is not equal opportunity an arbitrary act is liable to be struck down as held
in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978] 2 SCR page 621at686.

The learned Advocate General of Karnataka submits that the im-
pugned Government order is consistent with the judgment of the Full
H Bench. The State of Karnataka has accepted the Judgment and has passed
STIJDENTS PARENTS ASSN. v. STATE [MO~, J.] 945

the impugned order. The G.O. is only a regulatory measure to bring about A
academic discipline. Having regard to the fact that the minority institutions
exist in the State of Karnataka it is obligatory on the part of these institu-
tions to impart knowledge of Kannada. This is the regional language of the
State. The G.O. removes the compulsory element during the primary stage
as is required to be provided under Article 350-A of the Constitution. The B
arguments of the petitioner proceed on a wrong basis as though minorities
are deprived of its rights to preserve its language or culture. That is not
so. There is no violation of either Article 29 or 30 nor even Article 14 of
the Constitution.

In order to appreciate the respective contentions it is necessary to C
find out the purport of the Full Bench decision of the Karnataka · High
Court reported in AIR (1989) Karnataka 226, General Secretary, Linguistic
Minorities Protection Committee v. State of Kamataka, at page 265 it is inter
alia stated thus:

"In W.P. Nos. 18848/1987 and 1097/1988: D
I. The writ petitions are allowed.

II. The impugned Government Order dated 20.7.82 as also the
Circular dated 11-8-1982 issued by the Director of Public Instruc-
tions pursuant to the aforesaid Government order are declared E
void as offending Arts. 14, 29(1) and 30(1) of the Constitution of
India.

III. The Government shall, however, be at liberty:

(a) to introduce Kannada as one of the two languages from that F
primary school class from which study of another language in
addition to mother-tongue is made obligatory as part of the general
pattern of primary education; and

(b) to make study of Kannada compulsory as one of the three
languages for study in secondary schools, by making appropriate G
order or rules and make it applicable to all those whose mother-
tongue is Kannada and also to linguistic minorities who are and
who become permanent residents of this State, in all primary and
secondary schools respectively, whether they are· Government or
Government recognised, including those established by any of the H
'
946 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1993) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A linguistic minorities".

The above ruling is based- on the fact that Kannada was made
compulsory even in the primary stage. That was the gravamen of the charge
by the minority institutions (the writ petitioners). This was the reason why
the Full Bench expressed its opinion on the three questions quoted above,
B in those terms.

In view of the liberty given to the State of Karnataka the present G.O.
bearing No. 87 PRU SE BHA 88, Bangalore dated 19.6.89 (quoted above)
has been to be passed. A corrigendum also came to be issued on 22.6.89
C which reads as under :
"For para (i) of Order portion of the above said Govt. order
dated 19.6.1989 i.e., from the words "From 1st standard
...................... subject to study" the following para shall be sub-
stituted: -
D
"From 1st standard to IVth standard, where it is expected that
normally mother tongue will be the medium of instruction, only
one language from Appendix-I will be compulsory subject of
study."

E A careful reading of the above G.O. would clearly indicate that the
element of compulsion at the primary stage is no longer there because the '
G.O. is unequivocal when it says from 1st to 4th standards mother tongue
will be the medium of instruction, only one language froni Appendix-I will
be compulsory subject of study. From 3rd standard onwards Kannada will
F be an optional subject for non-Kannada speaking students. It is to be taught
on a voluntary basis there being no examination at the end of the year in
Kannada language. This part of the G.O. is clearly in consonance with
Article 350-A of the Constitution of India which reads as follows : -

"Facilities for instruction in mother-tongue at primary stage. •
G It shall be the endeavour of every state and of every local authority
within the State to provided adequate facilities for instruction in
the mother-tongue at the primary stage of education to children
belonging to linguistic minority groups; and the President may issue
such directions to any state as he considers necessary -or proper
H for securing the provision of such facilities."
•. , STUDENTS PARENTS ASSN. v. STATE [MOHAN, J.] 947

This Article is designed to implement one of the States Organisation A
Commission's important recommendations regarding safeguards for lin-
guistic minorities in the States after reorganisation.

Mahatma Gandhi, the Father of the Nation, on more than one
occasion emphasised on the mother tongue being the medium of instruc-
B
tion. He forcefully said :

"The babe takes its first lesson from its mother. I, therefore, regard
it as a sin against the motherland to inflict upon her children a
tongue other than their mother's for their mental development."
c
xxxx xxxx xxxx

"I hold it be as necessary for the urban child as for the rural
to have the foundation of his development laid on the solid rock
of the mother tongue."
D
xxxx ·xxxx xxxx

"Who can calculate the immeasurable loss sustained by the
nation owing to thousands of its young men having been obliged
to waste years in mastering a foreign language and its medium, of E
which in their daily life they have the least use and in learning
which they had to neglect their own mother-tongue and their own
literature."

All educational experts are uniformly of the opinion that pupils
should begin their schooling through the medium of their mother tongue, F
· There is great reason and justice behind this. Where the tender minds of
~\e children are subject to an alien medium the learning process becomes
unnatural. It inflicts a cruel strain on the children which makes. the entire
transaction mechanical. Besides, the educational process becomes artificial
and torturous. The basic knowledge can easily be garnered through the ·a

- mother-tongue. The introduction of a foreign language tends to threaten
to atrophy the development of mother-tongue. When the pupil comes of
age and reaches the 5th standard level, the second language is introduced.
The child who has not taken Kannada as a first language is required to
take it as a second laIJ.guage. At the secondary stage the three-language H
948 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1993) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A formula is introduced. However, in cases of non-Kannada speaking stu-
dents grace marks upto 15 are awarded. Certainly, it cannot be contended
that a student studying in a school from Karnataka need not know the
regional language. It should be the endeavour of every State to promote
the regional language of that State. In fact, the Government of Karnataka
B has done commendably well in passing this G.0. Therefore, to contend that
the imposition of study of Kannada throws an undue burden on the
students is untenable. Again to quote Mahatma Gandhi:

"The medium of 'instruction should be altered at once and at
any coast, the provincial languages being given their rightful place.
c I would prefer temporary chaos in higher education to the criminal
waste that is daily accumulating."

In view of this analysis, it is clear that there is no violation of Article
29 or 30 of the Constitution infringing the right of the minorities. In DA. V.
D College Bathinda v. State of Punjab, [1971) Supp. SCR 677, this Court held
at page 687 as under :

"The University by adopting Punjabi as the sole or exclusive
medium for the Colleges affiliated to the University, notwithstand-
ing the .concessions granted, acted in excess of the power conferred
E on its. While the University can prescribe Punjabi as a medium of
instruction it cannot prescribe it is the exclusive medium nor
compel affiliated Colleges established and administered by linguis-
tic or religious minorities or by a Section of the citizens who wish
to conserve their language script and culture, to teach in Punjabi
F or take examination in that language with Gurmukhi script. The
University Act having compulsory affiliated these Colleges must of
necessity cater to their needs and allow them to administer their
institutions in their own way and impart instructions in the medium
and write examination in their own script."
G
Therefore, this ruling has no application to the facts of the present
case.

Reliance placed on this decision by learned counsel for the petitioner
is misconceived. InDA.V. College v. State of Punjab, [1971] Supp. SCR 688
H at pages 703-704 it was held thus :
S~DENTSPARENTSASSN.v. STATE[MOHAN,J.] 949

"Sub-Section (3) of Section 4 also does not in our view trans- A
gress the guarantee under Article 29(1). Whether one may like it
or not, linguistic States in this country have come to stay. The
purpose and object of these linguistic states is to provide with
greater facility the development of the people of that area educa-
tionally, socially and culturally, in the language of that region but
B
while the State or the University has every right to provide for the
education of the majority in the regional medium, it is subject to
the restrictions contained in Articles 25 to 30. Neither the Univer-
sity nor the State can provide for imparting education in a mediurr1
of instruction in a language and script which stifles the language
and script of any Section of the Citizens. Such a course will trespass C
on the rights of those Sections of the citizens which have a distinct
language or script and which they have a right to conserve through
educational institutions of their own. In our view Section 4(3) does
not lend itself to the interpretation that the medium of instruction
of all affiliated Colleges has to be Punjabi. The provision, as we D
construe it, is for the promotion of Punjabi studies and research
in and in the development of the Punjabi language, literature and
culture which is far from saying that the University can under that
provision compel the affiliated Coileges particularly those of the
minority to give instruction in the Punjabi language or in any way
impede the right to conserve their language script and culture. E

It is again contended that while provision is made in Sections
4(2) and 4(3) for the study and research of the life and teachings
of Guru Nanak and for the study of Punjabi language, Script and
literature no similar provision is made for the study, of religious F
Heads of Hindus or for the study of Hindi and Devnagari script
though Hindus form a substantial portion of the population of the
State. These provisions therefore are discriminatory and violative
of Article 14 of the Constitution. This argument in our view is
devoid of merit. The State of Punjab is created as a unilingual State G
with Punjabi as its language and if provision is made for study of
Punjabi language that does not furnish a ground for discrimination
nor can the provision for study of the life and teachings of Guru
Nanak afford any cause for complaint as in neither case as we have
noticed is there any compulsion on any person to undertake such
studies nor is any of the communities prohibited from pursuing H
. 950 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1993] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A studies in respect of either Hindi or of the life and teachings of
any Hindu saint. The facts of the case in our view do not attract
Article 14."

The directive principle contained in Article 39 (t) does not advance
the case of the petitioner.
B
As rightly contended by the learned Advocate General where the
State by means of the impugned G.O. desires to bring about academic
discipline as a regulatory measure it is a matter of policy. The State knows
how best to implement the language policy. It is not for the Court to
C interfere. In Hindi Hitrakshak Samiti and others v. Union of India, (1990] 1
SCR 588, this lays down at page 592 as under :

"It may be that Hindi or other regional languages are more
appropriate medium of imparting education to very many and it
may be appropriate and proper to hold the examinations, entrance
D
or otherwise, in any particular_ regional or Hindi language, or it
may be that Hindi or other regional language because of develop-
ment of that language, is not yet appropriate medium to traJ:!.Smute
or test the knowledge or capacity that could be had in medical and
dental disciplines. It is a matter of formulation of policy by the
State or educational authorities in-charge-of any particular situa-
tion. Where the existence of a fundamental right has to be estab-
lished by acceptance of a particular policy or a course of action
for which there is no legal compulsion or statutory imperative, and
on which thete are divergent views, the same cannot be soeght to
F -- be enforced by Article 32 of the Constitution. Article 32 of the
Constitution cannot be· a means to indicate policy preference."

In a matter relating to policy this Court should decline to interfere.
In the result, we conclude the writ petition is devoid of merits and is
accordingly dismissed.
G
As regards civil appeals we find the majority opinion of the High
Court has approached the matter in a proper perspective. We have already
extracted the relevant portions of the judgment. The sting of the earlier
G.Os. and orders was the element of compulsion especially the children·
'H -belonging to linguistic minorities from the first year of the primary school
STUDENTSPARENTSASSN.v. STATE[MOHAN,J.) 951

making Kannada as the sole first language in the secondary schools. Such A
a provision is violative of Articles 29 and 30 of the Constitution. We have
no difficulty in upholding the well- considered judgment of the High Court.
In fact, the State has accepted the position and issued G.O. dated 19.6.89
which is impugned in W.P. No. 5~6 of 1991. Therefore, the civil appeals
will also dismissed. However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall B
be no order as to costs.

A.G . Petition dismissed.

./'