U.P. HINDI SAHITYA SAMMELANversusSTATE OF U.P.

                   [2014] 13 S.C.R. 675


             U.P. HINDI SAHITYASAMMELAN                       A
                             v.
                      STATE OF U.P.
               (Civil Appeal No. 459 of 1997)
                                                              B
                  SEPTEMBER 04, 2014
 [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
                                                              H
                            675
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.
         Dismissing the appeal, the Court
 B
       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 Constitution- Cornerstone of
     a Nation by Granville Austin, Ninth Impression,
     2005; Constitutional Law of India - A Critical
     Commentary (Fourth Edition) by H. M. Seervai;
     Commentary on Constitution of India, Volume 9,           F
     2011 by Acharya D~ Durga Das Basu;
     Constitutional Law of India by T.K. Tope, 3rd
     Edition, 2010 and "Language policy and linguistic
     culture''. An introduction to language policy:
     Theory and method (2006) by Harold Schiffman             G
     - referred to.
                    Case Law Reference:
(1975) 2 sec 671           held inapplicable      . Para 29
                                                              H
678        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2014] 13 S.C.R.


A         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.
      459of 1997.
        From the judgment and order dated 16.08.1996 passed
  in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 10313 of 1989 of Lucknow
B Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.
       Shyam Divan, Salman Khurshid, Sr.Advs .. Dr. I. B Gaur,
  S.S. Nehra, Neeraj Dutt Gaur, Piyush Sharma, Vikramjeet
  Banerjee, Rakesh Kumar, Merusagar Samantary, lmtiaz
  Ahmed and Ms. Naghma lmtiaz (For M/s Equity Lex
C Associates),Advs. fortheAppellant.
       Dr. Rajeev Dhawan, Sr.Adv., R.P. Mehrotra, Vibhu Tiwari,
  Abhinav K. Malik, Ashutosh Kr. Sharma, Kamlendra Mishra,
  Mohd. lrshad Han if, Vishwajit Singh, A.S. Pundir, Arijeet Singh,
D Advs. for the Respondent.
          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
         R. M. LODHA, CJI. 1. On 12.11.1951, the Uttar Pradesh
   Official Language Act, 1951 (U.P. Act No.XXVI of 1951) (for
 E short, '1951 Act') was published in Gazette Extraordinary and
   came into force. 1951 Act was passed in Hindi by the U.P.
   Legislative Assembly on 27. 09 .1951 and by the U. P Legislative
   Council on 29.09.1951. It received the assent of the Governor
   on 05.11.1951. 1951 Act is enacted by the State Legislature
 F to provide for adoption of Hindi as the language to be used
   for the official purposes and other matters of the State of Uttar
   Pradesh.
          2. Section 2 of the 1951 Act reads as under:
          2. Hindi to be official language of the State.-Without
G
          prejudice to the provisions of Articles 346 and 34 7 of the
          Constitution, Hindi in Devnagri script shall, with effect
          from such date, as the State Govern-ment may, by
          notification in the official Gazette, appoint in this behalf,
 H        be the language used in respect of the following :-
    U.P. HINDI SAHITYASAMMELAN v. STATE OF U.P.                     679
                   [R. M. LODHA, CJI]

     (a) (i) ordinances promulgated under Article 213 of the        A
     Constitution.
      (ii) orders, rules regulations and bye-laws issued by the
     State Government under the Constitution of India or under
     any law made by Parliament or the Legislature of the         .
                                                                8
     State, and
     (b) all or any of the official purposes of the State; and
     different dates may be appointed for different purposes
     in clauses (a) and (b) aforesaid.
     A proviso was inserted to above Section 2 by U.P. Act
                                                                    c
No.9 of 1969. It reads, "Provided that the State Government
may by general or special order, in this behalf, permit the
use of the international form of Indian numerals for any official
purpose of the State."
                                                                    D
      3. On 07 .04.1982, an Ordinance called the Uttar Pradesh
Official Language (Amendment) Ordinance, 1982 was
promulgated by the Governor. Section 2 of the Ordinance
provided that in the 1951 Act, after Section 2, the following
Section (deemed Section 3) shall be inserted:                       E
      In the interest of Urdu speaking people, Urdu language
shall be used as second language, in addition to Hindi for such
purposes as are specified in the Schedule.
      Section 3 of the Ordinance provided that in the Principal     F
Act, after Section 3, as inserted by the Ordinance, the following
Schedule shall be inserted:
     1. Entertaining application in Urdu ·presented by the
     members of the public.
                                                                    G
     2. Receiving documents in Urdu presented for
     registration with a Hindi copy thereof.
     3. Publication of importan~ Government Rules, Regulation
     and Notifications.
                                                                    H
680         SUPREME COURT REPORTS.                [2014] 13 S.C.R.


A          4. Publication of important Government Advertisements.
           5. Translation of Gazette in Urdu.
       4. The above Ordinance was repl.aced by the U.P. Official
  Language (Amendment) (~rd) Ordinance, 1983 (U.P. Ordinance
B 44of1983). The constitutionality of U.P. Ordinance No.44 of
  1983 was put in issue before the Allahabad High Court,
  Lucknow Bench in Writ Petition No.285 of 1984 by the present
  appellant U.P. Hindi Sahitya Sammelan. This writ petition was
  dismissed by the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court,
C though by separate judgments.
        5. On 07.10.1989, the Uttar Pradesh Official Language
  (Amendment) Act, 1989 (U.P. Act No.28 of 1989) (for short,
  "1989 Amendment Act") came into effect. 1989 Amendment
  Act was enacted by the U.P. Legislature to amend 1951 Act.
0
  By this Amendment Act, Section 3 was inserted after Section
  2 in 1951 Act providing for Urdu language as second official
  language for such purposes as may be notified by the State
  Government from time to time.
E            6. In pursuance of the power conferred upon the State
      Government to notify Urdu as second official language for
      specified purposes, the State Government issued a notification
      on 07.10.1989 notifying use of Urdu language as second
      official language forthe following seven purposes:
 F
           1. Entertaining petitions and applications in Urdu and
           replies thereof in Urdu,
           2. receiving documents written in Urdu by the Registration
           office,
G
           3. publication of important Government Rules,
           Regulations and Notifications in Urdu also,
           4. issuing Government orders and circulars of public
           importance in Urdu also,
H
    U.P. HINDI SAHITYASAMMELAN v. STATE OF U.P.                        681
                   [R. M. LODHA, CJI]

     5. publication of important Government advertisements             A
     in Urdu also,
     6. publication of Urdu translation also of the Gazette,
      7. exhibition of important signposts in Urdu.
      ?.Appellant, U.P. Hindi Sahitya Sammelan (Civil Appeal B
No.459of1997), which had filed Writ Petition No.285of1984
earlier before the Allahabad High Court challenging the
constitutionality of U:P. Ordinance No.44of1983, filed another
writ petition before the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench C
challenging the 1989 Amendment Act and Notification dated
07.10.1989.
    8. This writ petition was heard by the Division Bench.
comprising of S.N. Sahay and D.K. Trivedi, JJ.
      9. S.N. Sahay, J. in his judgment held that the 1989 D
Amendment Act and the notification impugned in the writ
petition were ultra vires and liable to be struck down. He,
however, observed that the State Legislature shall not be
precluded from making any law in future with respect to Urdu E
in accordance with the provisions of Articles 345 and 34 7 of
the Constitution.
      10. D.K. Trivedi, J., on the other hand, did not concur
with the view of S.N. Sahay, J. He, in his separate judgment,
held that the 1989 Amendment Act and the notification                  F
impugned in the writ petition did not suffer from the constitutional
vice and the writ petition was liable to be dismissed.
      11. In view of the difference of opinion between the
Members of the Bench, the Bench directed the papers to be              G
laid before the Chief Justice of the High Court for referring the
following questions to a third Judge for his opinion:
      1. Whether the impugned enactment can be said to be a
      valid piece of legislation within the meaning of Article
      345 of the Constitution?                                         H
682         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2014] 13 S.C.R.


A          2. Whether the impugned notification suffers from the vice
           of excessive delegation ?
           3. Whether the impugned enactment and the impugned
           notification are valid and constitutional or ultra vires?
B          12. The Chief Justice of the High Court then referred the
      matter to the third Judge, Brijesh Kumar, J. (as His Lordship
      then was) for answer to the above questions.
            13. Brijesh Kumar, J. answered the questions referred
      to him as follows:
c
           (1) That while enacting law to officially recognise a second
           language for use in the State, the State Legislature shall
           have to consider the provisions of Articles 345 and 34 7
           of the Constitution by reading them together; the
D          impugned enactment is, however, valid piece of
           legislation in view of the judgment of the Division Bench
           in Writ Petition No. 285/84.
           2) The impugned enactment does not suffer from the vice
           of excessive delegation.
E
           (3) In view of the answers given on questions No. (1) and
           (2), I find that the impugned enactment as well as the
           notification are valid and constitutional
       14. In light of the answers given by the third Judge, the
F matter was placed before the Division Bench for appropriate
  orders on the writ petition.
           15. The Division Bench by its order dated 16.08.1996
      dismissed the writ petition holding as follows:
G             In view of the learned third Judge, Hon'ble Brijesh
           Kumar, J., the U.P. Official Language (Amendment )Act,
           1989 (U.P. Act No.28 of 1989) adding Section 3 in the
           U. P. Official Language Act, 1951 is held to be intra vires.
           It is further held that the impugned enactment does not
H
    U.P. HINDI SAHITYASAMMELAN v. STATE OF U.P.                               683
                   [R. M. LODHA, CJI]

      suffer from the vice of excessive delegation. The A
      impugned enactment as well as the notification are held
      valid and constitutional.
      In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. No
      order as to costs.
                                                                              B
     16. Aggrieved by the judgment and order of the Allahabad
High Court dated 16.08.1996, the present appellant filed
special leave petition. Leave was granted by this Court on
27.01.1997.
      17. On 02.09.2003, the appeal was listed for hearing C
before a 2-Judge Bench of this Court. The Bench felt that having
regard to the nature of controversy and the important question
of law arising in the matter, it was appropriate that matter should
be heard by a Bench of 3-Judges.                                    D
      18. It was then that the matter was listed before the 3-
Judge Bench on 29.10.2003. On that day, the Court was of
the opinion that the appeal needed to be heard by a Bench of
5-Judg~s as it involves substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of Articles 345 and 34 7 of the Constitution. This E
is how the appeal has come up before us.
      19. Part XVII' of the Constitution deals with official
1 Part XVII

343. Official language of the Union.- (1) The official language of the        F
Union shall be Hindi in Devanagari script.
The form of num·erals to be used for the official purposes of the Union
shall be the international form of Indian numerals.
(2) Notwithstanding anything in clause (1 ), for a period of fifteen years
from the commencement of this Constitution, the English language shall
continue to be used for all the official purposes of the Union for which it   G
was being used immediately before such commencement:
Provided that the President may, during the said period, by order authorise
the use of the Hindi language in addition to the English language and of
the Devanagari form of numerals in addition to the international form of
Indian numerals for any of the official purposes of the Union.
(3) Notwithstanding anything in this article, Parliament may by law provide   H
for the use, after the said period of fifteen years, of-
684           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2014] 13 S.C.R.


A language. It has four chapters. Chapter I relates to the official
  language of the Union, Chapter II, Chapter Ill and Chapter IV
       (a) the English language, or
      (b) the Devanagari form of numerals,
      for such purposes as may be specified in the law.
B 344. Commission and Committee of Parliament on official
      language.-
      (1) The President shall, at the expiration of five years from the
      commencement of this Constitution and thereafter at the expiration of
      ten years from such commencement, by order constitute a Commission
      which shall consist of a Chairman and such other members representing
C     the different languages specified in the Eighth Schedule as the President
      may appoint, and the order shall define the procedure to be followed by
      the Commission.
      (2) It shall be the duty of the Commission to make recommendations to
      the President as to-
      (a) the progressive use of the Hindi language for the official purposes of
D     the Union;
      (b) restrictions on the use of the English language for all or any of the
      official purposes of the Union;
      (c) the language to be used for all or any of the purposes mentioned in
      article 348;
      (d) the form of numerals to be used for any one or more specified purposes
E     of the Union;                                                        ·
      (e) any other matter referred to the Commission by the President as
      regards the official language of the Union and the language for
      communication between the Union and a State or between one State and
      another and their use.
      (3) In making their recommendations under clause (2), the Commission
F     shall have due regard to the industrial, cultural and scientific advancement
      of India, and the just claims and the interests of person~ belonging to the
      non-Hindi speaking areas in regard to the public services.
      (4) There shall be constituted a Committee consisting of thirty members,
      of whom twenty shall be members of the House of the People and ten
      shall be members of the Council of States to be elected respectively by
G     the members of the House of the People and the members of the Council
      of States in accordance with the system of proportional representation
      by means of the single transferable vote.
      (5) It shall be the duty of the Committee to examine the recommendations
      of the Commission constituted under clause (1) and to report to the
      President their opinion thereon.
      (6) Ne>twithstanding anything in article 343, the President may, after
H     consideration of the report referred to in clause (5), issue directions in
      accordance with the whole or any part of that report.
     U.P. HINDI SAHITYASAMMELAN v. STATE OF U.P.                                 685
                   [R. M. LODHA, CJI]

relate to regional languages, language of the Supreme Court, A
High Courts etc. and Special Directive respectively.
345. Official language or languages of a State.- Subject to the
provisions of articles 346 and 347, the Legislature of a State may by law
adopt any one or more of the languages in use in the State or Hindi as the
language or languages to be used for all or any of the official purposes of      B
that State:
Provided that, until the Legislature of the State otherwise provides by law,
the English language shall continue to be used for those official purposes
within the State for which it was being used immediately before the
commencement of this Constitution.

346. Official language for communication between one State and
                                                                                 c
another or between a State and the Union.· The language for the
time being authorised for use in the Union for official purposes shall be
the official language for communication between one State and another
State and between a State and the Union:
Provided that if two or more States agree that the Hindi language should         D.
be the official language for communication between such States, that
language may be used for such communication.·

347. Special provision relating to language spoken by a section of
the population of a State.·
On a demand being made in that behalf the President may, if he is satisfied      E
that a substantial proportion of the population of a State desire the use of
any language spoken by them to be recognised by that State, direct that
such language shall also be officially recognised throughout that State or
any part thereof for such purpose as he may specify.

348. Language to be used in the Supreme Court and in the High
                                                                                 F
Courts and for Acts, Bills, etc.·
(1) Notwithstanding anything in the foregoing provisions of this Part, until
Parliament by law otherwise provides-
(a) all proceedings in the Supreme Court and in every High Court,
(b) the authoritative texts-
(i) of all Bills to be introduced or amendments thereto to be moved in           G
either House of Parliament or in the House or either House of the
Legislature of a State,
(ii) of all Acts passed by Parliament or the Legislature of a State and of all
Ordinances promulgated by the President or the Governor of a State,
and
(iii) of all orders, rules, regulations and bye-laws issued under this           H
Constitution or under any law made by Parliament or the Legislature of a
State, shall be in the English language.
686           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2014] 13 S.C.R.


A          20. It is apposite here to briefly notice the views of
      prominent authors with regard to Part XVI I of the Constitution.
      (2) Notwithstanding anything in sub-clause (a) of clause (1 ), the Governor of
      a State may, with the previous consent of the President, authorise the
      use of the Hindi language, or any other language used for any official
B     purposes of the State, in proceedings in the High Court having its principal
      seat in that State:
      Provided that nothing in this clause shall apply to any judgment, decree
      or order passed or made by such High Court.
      (3) Notwithstanding anything in sub-clause (b) of clause (1 ), where the
      Le(Jislature of a State has prescribed any language other than the English
C     language for use in Bills introduced in, or Acts passed by, the Legislature
      of the State or in Ordinances promulgated by the Governor of the State or
      in any order, rule, regulation or bye-law referred to in paragraph (iii) of that
      sub-clause, a translation of the same in the English language published
      under the authority of the Governor of the State in the Official Gazette of
      that State shall be deemed to be the authoritative text thereof in the
      English language under this article .
.D
      349. Special procedure for enactment of certain laws relating to
      language.- During the period of fifteen years from the commencement of
      this Constitution, no Bill or amendment making provision for the language
      to be used for any of the purposes mentioned in clause (1) of article 348
      shall be introduced or moved in either House of Parliament without the
 E    previous sanction of the President, and the President shall not give his
      sanction to the introduction of any such Bill or the moving of any such
      amendment except after he has taken into consideration the
      recommendations of the Commission constituted under clause (1) of article
      344 and the report of the Committee constituted under clause (4) of that
      article.
 F
      350. Language to be used in representations for redress of
      grievances.- Every person shall be entitled to submit a representation
      for the redress of any grievance to any officer or authority of the Union or
      a State in any of the languages used in the Union or in the State, as the
      ca8e may be.
 G
      350A. Facilities for instruction in mother-tongue at primary stage.-
      It shall be the endeavour of every State and of every local authority within
      the State to provide 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
 H    considers necessary or proper for securing the provision of such facilities.
       U.P. HINDI SAHITYASAMMELAN v. STATE OF U.P.                                 687
                      [R. M. LODHA, CJI]

 It is commonly believed that the keenest controversy in the A
 Constituent Assembly was in regard to the official language.
 Shri B. Shiva Rao (The Project Committee Chairman) in "The
 Framing of India's Constitution -A Study" records: "This issue
 produced so much heat and gave rise to such violent feelings
 that it was felt necessary from the outset to keep it out of direct B
 discussion in the Assembly. The leaders made every effort
 to settle it on the basis of general accord, but often it seemed
 as though a settlement might not be possible. It was not until
 towards the end of the constitution making process that some
 kind of agreement could be reached." In Chapter 26 of this C
 volume, it is further recorded :
        Feelings on the language issue developed formidably
        almost from the opening of the Constituent Assembly. It
        was, however, not the Hindi versus Urdu or Hindi versus                    o
        Hindustani controversy that was raised at this time; there
        was general 'agreement that Hindustani might be the
        name for the national language. When the question of
        the setting up of a .:;ommittee on the rules of procedure
  3508. Special Officer for linguistic minorities.-                                E
  (1) There shall be a Special Officer for linguistic minorities to be appointed
  by the President.
  (2) It shall be the duty of the Special Officer to investigate all matters
  relating to the safeguards provided for linguistic minorities under this
  Constitution and report to the President upon those matters at such
  intervals as the President may direct, and the President shall cause all         F
  such reports to be laid before each House of Parliament, and sent to the
. Governments of the States concerned.

 351. Directive for development of the Hindi language. -It shall be
 the duty of the Union to promote the spread of the Hindi language, to
 develop it so that it may serve as a medium of expression for ctll the            G
 elements of the composite culture of India and to secure its enrichment
 by assimilating without interfering with its genius, the forms, style and
 expressions used in Hindustani and in the other languages of India
 specified in the Eighth Schedule, and by drawing, wherever necessary or
 desirable, for its vocabulary, primarily on Sanskrit and secondarily on
 other languages.                                                                  H
688        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                (2014] 13 S.C.R.


.A        was discussed, R. V. Dhulekar moved an amendment
          proposing that the committee should frame rules in
          Hindustani and not in English. The Chairman requested
          him to speak in English, as many members could not
          understand Hindustani; but Dhulekar not only insisted on
 B        speaking in Hindustani but made the remark that those
          who did not know Hindustani had no right to stay in India
          and were not worthy to be members of the Assembly.
          The Chairman cut the discussion short by ruling the
          amendment out of order and prohibiting all further
 c        discussion'; but the issue was revived when the report of
          the committee came up for discussion. The committee
          recommended that in the Assembly business should be
          transacted in Hindustani (Hindi or Urdu) or English, but
          the Chairman was permitted to allow any member
 D
          unacquainted with these languages to. address the
          Assembly in his mother tongue. The official records of
          the Assembly were to be kept in Urdu, Hindi and English.
          21. In Vol. IV of the Framing of India's Constitution -
 E Select Documents, Chapter 13 highlights the provisions
   relating to Official Language. It is stated therein that neither
   the draft Constitution prepared by the Constitutional Adviser
   nor the version as settled by the Drafting Committee contained
   any provisions relating to official language, but they contained
 F provisions as to the language or the languages to be used in
   the Union Parliament and the State Legislatures. The language
   issue figured prominently during the general discussion on the
   Draft Constitution; and the sharp differences of opinion which
   developed in the course of the debate revealed the extent of
 G feeling which the question had engendered. Towards the end
   of August, 1949, Munshi and GopalaswamiAyyangar prepared
   detailed draft compromise provisions for inclusion in the Draft
   Constitution. The draft provisions on the official language
   prepared by Munshi and Gopalaswami Ayyangar as revised
 H
    U.P. HINDI SAHITYASAMMELAN v. STATE OF U.P.                                689
                   [R. M. LODHA, CJI]

by the Drafting Committee had four chapters, Language of A
the Union, Regional languages, Language of Supreme Court
and High Courts etc. and Special Directive.
      22. Granville Austin in the Indian Constitution -
Cornerstone of a Nation, has described Munshi-Ayyangar B
formula as half-hearted compromise. He says that it was a
compromise between opinions which were not easily
reconcilable. There were two basic principles behind the
formula, one "we should select one of the languages in India
as the common language of the whole of India". The second c
principle was "that the numerals to be used for all official Union
purposes should be what have been described as the all-India
forms of Indian numerals." The members of the Assembly
voted for the Munshi-Ayyangarformula.
      23. H. M. Seervai in Constitutional Law of India - A D
Critical Commentary (Fourth Edition)¥ has also given a brief
historical account of the language issue that erupted in the
¥ 23.2 The provisions of our Constitution relating to language have raised
no serious questions of legal interpretation, but they have raised serious
political problems. It is outside the scope of this work to describe in        E
detail the various phases of the controversy about language which resulted
in the enactment of Part XVII of our Constitution. Nor is it necessary to do
so, for a well documented and vivid account of the forces at play has
been given by Austin in his chapter entitled "Language and the Constitution
-the Half-hearted Compromise". The chapter repays study, but its effect
may be stated thus: in his struggle for political freedom, Mahatma Gandhi      F
raised the question of a national language. He described it at times as
Hindi, and at times as Hindustani, but he understood by both a language
which was neither Sanskritised Hindi nor Persianised Urdu, but a happy
blend of both, written either in the Devanagari or the Persian script.
However the question of language did not receive much attention till it
was forced upon the Constituent Assembly. On political and psychological       G
grounds there was a general demand for a national language. But difficulties
became apparent when that demand had to be translated into constitutional
provisions. The need for unity among the Indian people was undisputed,
and English had supplied that basic unity by uniting the people of the
 North, whose language was derived from Sanskrit or Persian, and the
 people of the South speaking Dravidian languages which were not so            H
690          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2014] 13 S.C.R.


A course of discussion on the Draft Constitution. H. M. Seervai
  states that having regard to the place given to the Union in our
  Constitution, the importance of the official language of the Union
  cannot be overrated. Drawing the distinction between English
B     derived. Again, administration at the higher levels, higher education, the
      legislature, the law courts, and the professions, all used English, and the
      question was which language should take the place of English and when?
      Till the partition of India, Hindustani in both the Devanagari and the Persian
      script held the field. With the partition of India the cause of Hindustani
      was lost, though Mahatma Gandhi held that the Indian National Congress
C     ought to stand for a broad outlook and should stand firm on a language
      which was spoken by the largest group of people. Though Hindi was
      selected as the official language, it could not be described as the national
      language, for, it was not the language generally spoken in all parts of
      India, and though spoken by the largest single group of people, that group
      did not constitute the majority of people in India. Besides, there were
      regional languages such as Bengali in Bengal, Tamil in Madras, Marathi
D     and Gujarati in the erstwhile State of Bombay which were spoken by
      large populations and it was claimed for those languages that they were
      more developed than Hindi. Hindi was therefore described as the official
      language. In the Constituent Assembly, the protagonists of Hindi were
      prepared to abandon the basis of consensus on which the Assembly had
      functioned; but their extreme methods provoked a reaction and some
 E    who had supported them earlier withdrew their support. The leaders of
      the Congress party, who formed the government of the day, counselled
      moderation, for they were brought in close contact with the difficulties
      involved in making the transition from English to an Indian language. It
      appeared at one stage that the unity which had existed in the Constituent
      Assembly would break down on the provisions relating to language. But.
 F    at the last moment, a compromise formula called the "Munshi-Ayyangar
      formula" was evolved and was accepted without dissent. It was a half-
      hearted compromise, for it gave to neither party what it wanted. Pandit
      Jawaharlal Nehru told the Constituent Assembly, that he would not have
      accepted Hindi as. the official language if express provision had not been
      made that Hindi did not exclude Hindustani, that it was not to be the
G     language of a learned coterie and that Hindi was to be based on the
      composite culture of India assimilating words from all languages. A period
      of 15 years was provided during which English was to continue but this
      was a flexible limit, for Parliament could extend it. The battle over numerals
      was settled in favour of "the international form of Indian numerals" - a
      euphemism for Arabic numerals, with a proviso that after 15 years
H     Parliament might~y law provide for the use of the Devanagari form of
      numerals for such purposes as may be specified.
    U.P. HINDI SAHITYASAMMELAN v. STATE OF U.P.                        691
                   [R. M. LODHA, CJI]

and Hindi, on the one hand, and other languages mentioned              A
in Schedule VIII, on the other hand, the learned author says:
      English was and is a de facto medium of instruction in
     various Universities. The Constitution and the Official
     Languages Act have continued its use for official                 B
     purposes of the Union of India. Therefore, English stands
     in a class by itself, because of historical reasons and
     because of express constitutional and legislative
     provisions. Hindi also occupies a position by itself. It is
     the official language of the Union of India and the               c
     Constitution contemplates that it should gradually replace
     English. Therefore, Hindi is also in a class by itself. But
     the other languages mentioned in Sch. VIII stand on a
     different footing. The retention of English as a medium
     is justified and the substitution of English by Hindi can         D
     be justified for reasons mentioned above. But the
     substitution of any other regional language for English
     cannot be justified because there would be other
     languages spoken by large groups of people which are
     capable of being the media of instruction in Universities.        E
     Since there are large numbers of people in the city whose
     mother tongue is Marathi, Gujarati, Hindi, Tamil,
     Malayalam, and Urdu, it would be difficult to justify the
     selection of one or more of these languages as a medium
     of instruction to the exclusion of the others, if the principle   F
     of selection is that University education should be in the
     mother tongue.
     24. Acharya Dr. Durga Das Basu, in his commentary on
the Constitution of India, Volume 9, 2011 while dealing with G
Part XVII under the sub-title "Need for a National Language"
observes that the Constitution makers failed to declare one
language as the national language of India and what has been
provided in the Constitution is mainly a compromise between
                                                             H
692          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2014] 13 S.C.R.


  A the diverse claims. Dr. Basu then observes that what has been
                            7J


    provided in the Constitution is not a national language but -
    (a) an "official language" for the Union (Articles 343-344 ); (b)
    regional official languages for the States (Articles 345-34 7);
    and (c) official language (a) for purposes of proceedings in
· B the Supreme Court and High Courts and (b) for Bills, Acts,
    Ordinances, Regulations, bye-laws at the Union and State level.
    Dr. Basu in his treatise quotes the Constitutional Law of India
    byT.K. Tope', wherein the author has stated that Hindi has not
    been accepted as the national language by the Constitution;
  C the Constitution has not laid down any language as the national
    language.
             25. Now, it is time to turn to the two Articles, Articles 345
      and 347, which have fallen for consideration on the issue,
 D    whether it is constitutional for the U.P. Legislative Assembly to
      declare Urdu as the second official language through the 1989
      Amendment Act once it has declared Hindi as the official
      language in 1951 under Article 345 of the Constitution of India.
      The submission by Mr. Shyam Divan, learned senior counsel
 E    for the appellant, is that having regard to the special
      constitutional status of the Hindi language, where the
      Legislature of a State by law adopts Hindi as the official
      language, two things necessarily follow (one) the State
      Legislature is precluded from de-recognising Hindi as an
 F    official language and (two) the State Legislature is precluded
      from adopting any other official language. The argument of
      the learned senior counsel for the appellant is founded on the
      premise that Part XVI I of the Constitution constitutes complete
      scheme with regard to official language. The two key features
 G    of Part XVII, according to learned senior counsel, are: a special
      status to the Hindi language and a special role of balancing
      entrusted to the President on the sensitive and potentially
      divisive issue of language.
       "'(Reference is made to Granville Austin, the Indian Constitution -
 H      Cornerstone of a Nation, Ninth Impression, 2005, Pg. 266)
      '(3'd Edition, 2010atpp.1113-1114)
    U.P. HINDI SAHITYASAMMELAN v. STATE OF U.P.                  693
                   [R. M. LODHA, CJI]

        26. What logically follows from the argument of Mr. Shyam · A
Divan is that the text of Article 345 gives two options to the
State Legislature, one, adoption of any one or more of the
languages in use in the State (Option 1) and the other, Hindi
(Option 2) and once Option 2 is exercised, the power of the
State Legislature gets exhausted. If the argument of Mr. Shyam B .
Divan is accepted, it would mean that the use of the word "or"
signifies that Option 1 would be available to the Legislature of
State only if it does not go in for Option 2. Once the State
Legislature has exercised Option 2, and adopted Hindi as
the language to be used for all or any of the official purposes C
of the State, it cannot go down the route of Option 1. We find
it difficult to accept the submission of learned senior counsel.
Merely because Hindi is mentioned explicitly or separately and
it is adopted as official language by the State, we do not think D
that the Constitution forecloses the State Legislature's option
to adopt any other language in use in the State as official
language.
      27. Nothing in Article 345, in our view, bars declaring
one or more of the languages in use in the State, in addition to E
Hindi, as the second official language. This can only be at the
cost of distorting the provision contained in Article 345. The
significance of the word "or" occurring before "Hindi" is to
dispense with the requirement of Hindi being "in use", while
the requirement of being "in use" for any other language to be F
declared official language has to be satisfied for exercise of
power by the State Legislature under Article 345. Dispensing
this requirement for Hindi was meant to absorb the adoption
of Hindi across States. This cannot be taken to mean that the
particular State Legislature must sacrifice its power in G
promoting other languages within the State. The purpose of
using Hindi separately inArticle 345 is to facilitate adoption of
Hindi across the States whether or not Hindi is in use in a
particular State. Any other construction to Article 345 would H
694          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2014] 13 S.C.R.


A be unduly interfering with the language compromise adopted
  by the Constitution.
        28. Part XVII of the Constitution as its scheme suggests
  is accommodative. After all, language policies are constructs
B and they change over time. I"
         29. The plain language of Article 345 which empowers
  the State Legislature to make law for adoption of one or more
  of the languages in use in the State leaves no manner of doubt
  that such power may be exercised by the State Legislature
C from time to time. A different intention does not appear from
  the plain language of Article 345. We do not find any indication
  that the power can be exercised by the State Legislature only
  once and that power gets exhausted if the State Legislature
  adopts Hindi as the official language of the State. In our view,
D the State Legislature is at liberty to exercise its discretion under
  Article 345 from time to time for specified purpose. It does
  not appear to us that Hindi once adopted as official language
  of the State in exercise of its power by State Legislature under
  Article 345, the State Legislature ceases to have any law
E making power under Article 345. The judgment of this Court
  in Nasiruddin 1 has no application for the purpose of
  construction of Article 345.
        30. We shall deal with the expression "subject to" a little
F later but suffice it to say here that there are many State
  Legislatures who have adopted other officially recognized
  language(s) in addition to Hindi such as Bihar, Haryana,
  Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh and Uttarakhand. Delhi has also
  adopted Punjabi and Urdu as other officially recognized
G languages in addition to Hindi. Obviously, this would not have
  been possible but for the constitutional permissibility.
      ;'.~Schiffman, Harold. "Language policy and linguistic culture". An
      i'ntroduction to language policy: Theory and method (2006): 111-125)
      1
        Sri Nasiruddin v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal; [(1975) 2 SCC 671]
H
    U.P. HINDI SAHITYASAMMELAN v. STATE Of! U.P.                      695
                   [R. M. LODHA, CJI]

       31. The position that Hindi has been mentioned                 A
separately in Article 345 in the context of the preceding
expression "adopt any one or more of the languages in use in
the State" is to promote and spread Hindi in terms of Article
351 though it may not be spoken or used by the people in the
State. Article 345 enables the State Legislature to adopt any         B
number of languages which are in use in the State for all or any
of the official purposes of the State. It is not necessary that
there must be demand made on that behalf to the State
Government or if there is demand, the State Legislature cannot
make law adopting a language in use in the State as second            C
official language. This is one of the distinguishing features
between Articles 345 and 34 7. If Hindi is in use in a particular
State then it does not foreclose the State's power or discretion
to adopt any language other than Hindi as the official language       D
provided such language is 'in use' in that State. 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
exercised any number of times by the State Legislature as it          E
deems proper. The only restriction to such legislative power
is in Article 347 in a given situation which we shall explain after
some more discussion.
       32. Part XVI I of the Constitution titled "official language",
Mr. Shyam Divan, learned senior counsel argues, is a self- F
                                                t
contained part of the Constitution akin to a complete Code.
His submission is that the provisions in Part XVII constitute a
complete scheme with respect to official language. We are in
agreement with the learned senior counsel to this extent. He
is also right in his submission that Hindi language has a special G
status and particularly in Part XVII. In this regard, reference to
Articles 343(1 ), 344(2)(a), 345, 346 proviso, 348(2) and 351
has been rightly made. The above provisions in the
Constitution, in our view, prescribe larger constitutional charter
                                                                      H
 696         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    (2014] 13S.C.R.


  A for Hindi but this position in no way leads to the conclusion
    suggested by the learned senior counsel for the appellant that
    where the Legislature of a State by law adopts Hindi as the
    official language, the State Legislature is precluded from
    adopting any other official language. As noted earlier, nothing
  B in Article 345 bars adopting any other official language in use
    in the State, in addition to Hindi, as the second official language.
          33. It is true that Part XVII specifies the role of the
    President (or for that matter, 'Union Government') under
  C numerous provisions. The President may respond to a
    demand for an additional official language where the
    requirements of Article 34 7 are fulfilled. Before directing that
    a particular language shall also be officially recognized
    throughout a State or any part of the State for such purpose as
  D the President may specify, the President must be satisfied
    that "a substantial portion of the population of a State desire
    the use of any language spoken by them to be recognized by
    that State". Article 3508 provides a machinery by which the
    President may make an assessment with respect to demand
· E of linguistic minorities. However, we are not persuaded to
    accept the argument of the learned senior counsel for the
    appellant that arrangement in Part XVII of the Constitution
    seeks to ensure that the States do not yield to demands for
    multiple official languages sequentially and this power is
  F reserved exclusively with the President (Union Executive) .
                            •
             34. The expression "subject to the provisions of Articles
     346 and 34 7" occurring in Article 345 does not make Article
     345 subordinate to Articles 346 and 34 7 as suggested by the
   G learned senior counsel. The effect of the expression "subject
     to ........ " is that any law made by the Legislature of the State is
     subject to directions existing, if any, issued by the President
     under Article 347 when the State Legislature exercises its
     power under Article 345. Once the direction is issued by the
   H President under Article 34 7, it is not open to the State
    U.P. HINDI SAHITYASAMMELAN v. STATE OF U.P.                   697
                   [R. M. LODHA, CJI]

Legislature to tinker with such direction in any manner. In other A
words, the exercise of power by the State Legislature should
not be in conflict in any manner with the directions that may
have been issued by the President under Article 347. The
plenary power of the State under Article 345 is limited to this
extent only. Except to the limited extent as noted above, it is B
not correct to say that power of the State Legislature under
Article 345 is subordinate or servient to Article 34 7. Part XVII
must be read as a whole and, in our view, Articles 345 and
347 should be construed so as to make it consistent with
federal structure and so also the other provisions of this C
Chapter.
        35. The law making power of the State Legislature under
Article 345 is restricted by virtue of the expression "subject
to ...... " against the direction issued by the President under   D
Article 347 occupying the field. Absent such direction, the
State Legislature is not prevented in any manner in exercising
its power under Article 345.
      36. We have, thus, no hesitation in holding that in the
absence of direction issued by the President under Article 34 7   E
of the Constitution, there is no restriction, restraint or
impediment for the State Legislature in adopting one of the
languages in use in the State as an official language under
Article 345 of the Constitution of India.
                                                                  F
       37. As seen above, Article 345 deals with the power of
the State Legislature while Article 34 7 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 requirement, "a G
substantial portion of the population of a State desire the use
of any language spoken by them to be recognized by that State"
in Article 34 7 is not a requirement under Article 345 for the
State Legislature to enact law adopting the language as official
                                                                 H
698        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2014] 13 S.C.R.


A language of the State, which is in use in the State. We do not
  think that the requirement of Article 34 7 can be read as a
  necessary requirement for the State Legislature to exercise
  its power under Article 345. We are in agreement with the
  view expressed by D.K. Trivedi, J. wherein he said, "The only
B limitation imposed on the State Legislature under Article 345
  of the Constitution of India is that the said language must be
  in use in the State and further if any direction has been issued
  by the President under Article 347 then the same will have a
  binding effect ......".
c
         38. The criterion for adoption of one or more of the
   languages, other than Hindi, in the State is that those languages
   must be "in the use in State". This criterion must be satisfied
   at the time the State Legislature exercises its power under
 o Article 345. The State Legislature cannot adopt any language
   as official language if such language is not used in the State.
   However, there is no impediment for the State Legislature to
   declare Hindi to be an official language even if Hindi is not "in
   use" in Karnataka. The reason for this is to be found in
 E constitutional compromise on the linguistic issue and the larger
   constitutional charter for Hindi to facilitate the spread of Hindi
   across India.
         39. Learned senior counsel for the appellant argues that
 F Chapter II of Part XVII engrafts a unique dichotomy involving
   the State Legislature at the State level and the Union Executive
   (the President) at the Central level. It provides two routes for
   designating a language as an official language in a State; (a)
   the adoption by law by the Legislature of the State; and (b) a
 G direction by the President of India. These two routes are
   complementary. Learned senior counsel is right in his
   submission that the Constitution of India provides two routes
   as noted above for designating a language as an official
   language in a State. However, the inference drawn by him that
 H where the State Legislature_ has adopted a language as the
    U.P. HINDI SAHITYASAMMELAN v. STATE OF U.P.                      699
                   [R. M. LODHA, CJI]

official language, and there is a demand for recognition of          A
another language which is used by a substantial proportion of
the population of a State, the Constitution provides only one
method for designating another language as the official
language, which is through a Presidential direction under Article
347, is not entirely correct. Insofar as Article 347 is concerned,   B
the learned senior counsel is right that if there is a demand for
recognition of another language which is used by a substantial
proportion of the population of a State, this could be done
through Presidential direction under Article 34 7. However, he
is not right that this is the only method for designating another    C
language as the official language. If the construction of the
learned senior counsel is accepted, it would restrict and limit
the power of the State Legislature in adopting one or more
languages in use in the State as official language. The              D
curtailment of the State Legislature's power under Article 345,
as suggested by the learned senior counsel is neither
constitutionally sound nor does it flow from the scheme of Part
XVII of the Constitution generally and the scheme engrafted
under Articles 345 and 347. We do not find ourselves in              E
agreement with the learned senior counsel that a situation where
there is a demand for another official language, Article 34 7 is
the only manner known in the Constitution to respond to such
a demand. In our view, this is misunderstanding of Articles
345 and 347.                                                         F
      40. In what we have stated above, we are unable to agree
with the learned senior counsel for the appellant that since the
Statement of Objects and Reasons accompanying the Uttar
Pradesh Official Language (Amendment) Bill, 1989 expressly
records "demand for the declaration of Urdu as the second G
language of the State was made from time to time", the
impugned law covers the situation contemplated in Article 34 7
and, therefore, invoking the legislative power by the State
Legislature under Article 345 is constitutionally bad.
                                                                     H
700          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2014) 13 S.C.R.


A       41. A bare text of Article 350 will show that it confers a
  constitutional right on every person to submit a representation
  for redress of any grievance to any office of the Union or the
  State in any of the language used in the Union or the State.
  Learned senior counsel for the appellant does not dispute the
B position that the State Executive may adopt different languages
  for the convenience of the citizenry. Obviously, then the State
  Legislature shall be within its constitutional power with regard
  to field covered by Article 345 to legislate by adopting a
  language or languages in use in the State subsequent to the
C adoption of Hindi as official language and so also adoption of
  more official languages. The exercise of legislative power by
  the State cannot be said to impinge upon the power given to
  the President under Article 34 7 unless a Presidential directive
  is occupying the field.
 0
           42. Article 367 of the Constitution is an interpretation al ·
      provision. Clause (1) of Article 367 reads:
            367. lnterpretation-(1) Unless the context otherwise
            requires, the General Clauses Act, 1897, shall, subject
 E          to any adaptations and modifications that may be made
            therein under Article 372, apply for the interpretation of
            this Constitution as it applies for the interpretation of an
            Act of the Legislature of the Dominion of India.
 F          (2)        )()()(                   )()()(                    xxx
            (3)        )()()(                   )()()(                    )()()(


            43. By virtue of the above provision in the Constitution,
      the provision of Section 14€ of the General Clauses Act, 1897
 G    € 14. Powers conferred to be exercisable from time to time.-(1) Where,
      by any Central Act or Regulation made after the commencement of this
      Act. any power is conferred then unless a different intention appears that
      power may be exercised from time to time as occasion requires.
      (2) This section applies also to all Central Acts and Regulations made
      on or after the fourteenth day of January, 1887.
 H
    U.P. HINDI SAHITYASAMMELAN v. STATE OF U.P.                      701
                   [R. M. LODHA, CJI]

applies to the interpretation of the Constitution and that leaves    A
no manner of doubt that the State Legislature may exercise its
power under Article 345 from time to time. We do not find any
merit in the argument of the learned senior counsel for the
appellant that Section 14 of the General Clauses Act has no
application in the present case since a different intention          B
appears in the constitutional scheme of Part XVII. We have
already explained the constitutional scheme of Part XVII and
so also ambit and scope of Articles 345 and 347. For the
reasons we have indicated above, we do not find any merit in
the argument of the learned senior counsel for the appellant         C
that the power of the State Legislature under Article 345 gets
exhausted after a single use. The argument is constitutionally
flawed and does not flow from Articles 345 and 347. In our
view, it will be unreasonable to construe Article 345 in the         D
manner suggested by the learned senior counsel for the
appellant. It is said that 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       E
accommodative - the object being to secure linguistic
secularism.
       44. We hold, as we must, that neither insertion of Section
3 in the 1989AmendmentAct nor the impugned notification in
pursuance of the above provision notifying Urdu as the second        F
language for seven purposes is unconstitutional.
      45. There is no merit in the appeal and it is dismissed
with no order as to costs.


Bibhuti Bhushan Bose                             Appeal dismissed.