Background & Context
- The debate over the language formula in the National Education Policy (NEP) remains contentious.
- A 2014 Supreme Court judgment (U.P. Hindi Sahitya Sammelan vs State of U.P.) upheld the idea of linguistic secularism, emphasizing an accommodative approach to language laws.
Relevance : GS 2 (Governance ,Constitution)
Key Observations of the 2014 Judgment
- The court ruled that Indian language laws are not rigid but organic and accommodative.
- It highlighted that law and language in India evolve organically, ensuring linguistic secularism.
- The ruling referenced Constitutional expert H.M. Seervai, who explained the Constituent Assembly’s 1949 compromise on language policy.
Hindi as an ‘Official Language’, Not a ‘National Language’
- Article 343 declared Hindi in Devanagari script as the official language, but not the national language.
- Rationale:
- Hindi was not spoken across all parts of India.
- Though spoken by the largest group, it did not constitute the majority of the population.
- Other languages (Bengali, Tamil, Marathi, Gujarati) were also well-developed and had large-speaking populations.
Article 351 & Hindi Promotion
- Article 351 mandates the Union Government to promote Hindi as a medium of cultural expression.
- However, Allahabad High Court’s 1982 ruling (Sunil K.R. Sahastrabudhey vs Director, IIT Kanpur) clarified that:
- Hindi is not a national language.
- The Constitution imposes a duty to promote Hindi but does not grant citizens the right to demand education in Hindi.
Protection of Linguistic Diversity (Article 29(1))
- Article 29(1) guarantees that every linguistic or cultural group has the fundamental right to conserve its language, script, and culture.
- This protection applies equally to majority and minority communities.
Right to Choose Medium of Instruction
- State of Karnataka vs Associated Management of Primary & Secondary Schools (SC judgment):
- Article 19 (freedom of speech & expression) includes a student’s right to choose their medium of instruction at the primary level.
- The state cannot impose control over language choice in education.
- Referenced the 1924 U.S. Supreme Court case (Pierce v. Society of Sisters of Holy Names):
- “A child is not a mere creature of the State.”
Implications for National Education Policy (NEP)
- The SC ruling supports linguistic flexibility, which contradicts concerns of Hindi imposition under the NEP.
- Language policies should be accommodative rather than coercive, recognizing regional linguistic aspirations.
- The judgment strengthens the constitutional validity of multilingualism in education.
