Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

34. The expression “subject to the provisions of Articles 346 and 347” occurring in Article 345 does not make Article 345 subordinate to Articles 346 and 347 as suggested by the 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 President under Article 347, it is not open to the State Legislature to tinker with such direction in any manner. In other 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 not correct to say that power of the State Legislature under Article 345 is subordinate or servient to Article 347. 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 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 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 347 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.

37. As seen above, Article 345 deals with the power of the State 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 requirement, “a 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 347 is not a requirement under Article 345 for the State Legislature to enact law adopting the language as official language of the State, which is in use in the State. We do not think that the requirement of Article 347 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 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……”.

39. Learned senior counsel for the appellant argues that 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 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 where the State Legislature has adopted a language as the official language, and there is a demand for recognition of 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, 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 347. However, he is not right that this is the only method for designating another 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 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 agreement with the learned senior counsel that a situation where there is a demand for another official language, Article 347 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.