Call Us Now

+91 9606900005 / 04

For Enquiry

legacyiasacademy@gmail.com

 Supreme Court had favoured ‘linguistic secularism’

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 Courts 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.

March 2025
MTWTFSS
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
31 
Categories