Gujarat High Court
Amrutlal Popatlal Parmar vs Chief on 4 October, 2013
Author: Chief Justice
Bench: Bhaskar Bhattacharya
AMRUTLAL POPATLAL PARMAR....Applicant(s)V/SCHIEF SECRETARY....Opponent(s) C/WPPIL/192/2013 CAV JUDGEMNT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD WRIT PETITION (PIL) NO. 192 of 2013 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA ================================================================ 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?2
To be referred to the Reporter or not ?3
Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?4
Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ?5
Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
================================================================ AMRUTLAL POPATLAL PARMAR....Applicant(s) Versus CHIEF SECRETARY....Opponent(s) ================================================================ Appearance:
PARTY-IN-PERSON, PERSONAL CAPACITY for the Applicant(s) No. 1 ================================================================ CORAM:
HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA Date :04/10/2013 CAV JUDGEMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA) By this writ-application in the nature of a public interest litigation, the petitioner, a resident of Rajkot, has prayed for an appropriate writ, order or direction to the Central Government to undertake all administration work in Hindi, which is the National language of this country.
2. According to the petitioner, the party-in-person, although India became independent on 15th August, 1947, the people have not been able to overcome the obsession for English language. According to the petitioner, very little percentage of Indian population knows English, yet vested interest of a section of the society having advantage of being in higher posts on account of the knowledge of English are very keen to see that this country never adopts Hindi language for all purposes. It is also his case that the framers of the Constitution were aware of this fact, but few people's vested interest has stalled development of the official language and regional languages of India, more particularly Hindi, which is the National language of this country. It is also his case that due to the provisions of Section 3 of the Official Languages Act, 1963, the language of Hindi has been almost neglected and this nation has continued to use English language extensively for all purposes, although the same is a foreign language.
In such circumstances, the petitioner has prayed for issue of appropriate directions to the Central Government to carry out all administration work in Hindi language.
3. Having heard the party-in-person and having gone through the materials on record, the only question that falls for our consideration in this public interest litigation is whether any legal right or any fundamental right of the petitioner could be said to have been infringed by the action of the Government in not discontinuing the use of English language?
4. To answer the aforesaid question, we need to look into the relevant Articles in the Constitution, namely, Articles 343, 344 and 351.
4.1 Article 343 provides that the official language of the Union shall be Hindi in Devnagari script. For a period of 15 years from the commencement of the Constitution., the English language shall continue to be used for all the official purposes of the Union for which it was being used immediately before such commencement. The proviso to Article 343 (2) is that the President may, during the said period, by order authorise the use of the Hindi language in addition to the English language. Parliament may by law provide for the use, after the said period of 15 years, of the English language for such purposes as may be specified in the law.
4.2 Article 344 is as follows : The President shall, at the expiration of five years from the commencement of the Constitution and thereafter at the expiration of ten years from such commencement, by order constitute a Commission. 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 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.
Article 344 further provides that a Committee shall be constituted and it shall be the duty of the Committee to examine the recommendations of the Commissions constituted under Article 344 (1) and to report to the President their opinion thereon.
Article 344 (6) provides that notwithstanding anything in Article 343, the President may, after consideration of the report referred to in clause (5), issue directions in accordance with the whole or any part of that report.
4.3 Article 351 provides that 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 all the elements of the composite culture of India.
5. Thus, Article 343 provides that the official language of the Union shall be Hindi in Devnagari script and for a period of 15 years from the commencement of the Constitution, the English language shall be continued to use for all the official purposes of the Union for which it was being used immediately before such commencement. The proviso to Article 343 (2) is that the President may, during the said period, by order authorise the use of the Hindi language in addition to the English language. Parliament may by law provide for the use, after the said period of 15 years, of the English language for such purposes as may be specified in the law.
6. In exercise of the powers conferred on the Parliament by Article 343(3) of the Constitution, the Parliament passed the Official Languages Act, 1963. Section 3 of the Act provided as follows:-
"Notwithstanding the expiration of the period of fifteen years from the commencement of the Constitution, the English language may, as from the appointed day, continue to be used, in addition to Hindi,-
(a) For all the official purposes of the Union for which it was being used immediately before that day, and
(b) for the transaction of business in Parliament."
7. In 1968, the Parliament amended the Official Languages Act 1963 and sub-section (4) was added to Section 3. Sub-section (4) as introduced by Amendment in 1968 is as follows :
"Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) or sub-section (3), the Central Government may, by rules made under Section 8, provide for the language or languages to be used for the official purpose of the Union, including the working of any Ministry, Department, Section or Office, and in making such rules, due consideration shall be given to the quick and efficient disposal of the official business and the interests of the general public and in particular, the rules so made shall ensure that persons serving in connection with the affairs of the Union and having proficiency either in Hindi or in the English language may function effectively and that they are not placed at a disadvantage on the ground that they do not have proficiency in both the languages."
8. The Supreme Court of India, in the case of Union of India and ors. Vs. Murasoli Maran, reported in AIR 1977 SC 225, made the following observations:-
"31.
In the forefront stands Article 343 which states that the official language of the Union shall be Hindi in Devanagari script. Article 351 states that 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 all the 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. The original calculation of the framers of the Constitution was that for a period of fifteen years the English language should be used for all official purposes. That is why two Commissions were contemplated under Article 344 - one in 1955 and one in 1960. The provisions of Article 344 indicate that it shall be the duty of the Commission to make recommendations to the President as to the progressive use of the Hindi language. The provisions of the Constitution indicate the progress towards the use of Hindi language.
32. It is in this context that Article 344 is enacted for the purpose of achieving the object of replacing English by Hindi within a period of fifteen years. Article 343 (3) states that Parliament may by law after the period of fifteen years provide for the use of English language. Although the Constitution considered the period of 15 years for replacing English the Constitution also found that it might not be possible to complete it. Therefore, Article 343 (3) provides merely for extension of time for the use of English language after the period of 15 years. The progressive use of the Hindi Language is thereby not to be impaired. Extending the time for the use of the English language does not amount to abandonment of progress in the use of Hindi as the official language of the Union.
33. Comparing clauses (2) and (3) of Article 343 it will be noticed that while English is permitted to be continued for all official purposes for which it was being used clause (3) contemplated that having regard to the progress made Parliament, if necessary, will choose the purpose for which the use of the English language might be continued."
9. The aforesaid makes the position very clear that Section 3 of the Official Languages Act, 1963, enacted by the Parliament in exercise of powers conferred on it by Articles 343(3) and 120(2) of the Constitution provides that English language may be continued to be used in addition to Hindi language for all purposes of the Union for which it was previously being used and for transacting the business in the parliament.
10. It is now well settled that to successfully maintain a writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it is necessary for the petitioner to show that any action or inaction on the part of the State has infringed any of his legal right or any fundamental right. We do not find any of the legal right or any fundamental right of the petitioner or of any other person said to have been infringed or violated because of non-use of Hindi language for all official purposes of the Union. This Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should not legislate and therefore, there is no question of issue of any writ of mandamus so far as the issue in question is concerned.
11. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in this petition and the same is rejected. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
(BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA, C.J.) (J.B.PARDIWALA, J.) Mohandas Page 7 of 7