Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

before the expression "medium of instruction". The use of the expression "a medium of instruction" clearly suggests that Gujarati or Hindi was to be one of several media of instruction, and steps were to be taken to encourage the development of Gujarati and Hindi and their use as media of instruction and examination. From the use of the expression "promote" read in the context of the indefinite article "a"

it is abundantly clear that power to impose Gujarati or Hindi as the medium of instruction and examination to the exclusion of other media was not entrusted to the University. It may be noticed that if the expression "'promote the use of Gujarati or Hindi as a medium of instruction and examination" was intended to mean "'to promote the exclusive use of Hindi or Gujarati", a similar interpretation would have to be put on the use of the expression "'to promote the development of Gujarati and Hindi", thereby ascribing to the Legislature an intention that no other languages beside Gujarati and Hindi were to be developed. Use in the proviso of the definite article "'the" in relation to English as medium of instruction further supports this view. When the Legislature enacted that English was to continue as the medium of instruction and examination in certain subjects it merely provided for continuance of an existing and accepted exclusive medium of instruction. It is common ground, that in the University of Bombay the exclusive medium of instruction was English, in the various affiliated colleges in the region or area over which the Gujarat University acquired authority. By the proviso to cl.(27) of s.4 in the subjects to be prescribed under the proviso the medium of instruction was to continue to remain English. By the operative part of cl.(27) therefore the Legislature provided that use of Gujarati or Hindi or both as a medium or media of instruction was to be promoted thereby indicating that Gujarati or' Hindi or both was or were not to be the exclusive medium or media but to be adopted in addition to the accepted medium viz. English, for instruction and examination, whereas under the proviso in respect of the subjects prescribed, English was to be the only medium for the periods specified. Clause (28) which confers authority upon University "to do all acts and things whether incidental to the powers aforesaid or not as may be requisite in order to further the objects of the University and generally to cultivate and promote arts, science and other branches of learning and culture" confers additional powers which though not necessarily incidental to the powers already conferred by cls.(1) and (27) were intended to be exercised to further the object of the University. But if the object of the University as indicated by cl.(27) was not to authorise the imposition of Gujarati or Hindi or both, as an exclusive medium or media it would be straining the language of cl.(28) to interpret it as exhibiting an intention to confer upon the University by using the somewhat indefinite expression "requisite in order to further the objects" power to provide for such an exclusive medium.

We are not concerned with the question of medium of instruction in regard to that part which has been specially carved out and included in entries 63, 64 and 65 of List I. The entire field of education, (1) [1962] SUPP. 3 S. C. R. 1.

including universities, subject to the exceptions mentioned in entry 11 of List II, is entrusted to the State Legislature. There cannot be education except through a medium or media of instruction. Education can be imparted only through a medium. To separate them is to destroy the concept. It is inconceivable that any reasonable body of constitution makers would entrust the subject of medium of instruction to Parliament and education dehors medium to a State: it is like cutting away the hand that feeds the mouth. That no such separation was made in the case of elementary and secondary education is conceded. It cannot also be doubted that medium of instruction is also included in entry 63 of List I relating to the specified universities. If so much is conceded, what is the reason for excluding it from the university education in entry 11 of List II ? There is none. Conversely, the express terms of entry 66 of List I does not prima facie take in the subject of medium of instruction. The phraseology is rather wide, but none the less clear. Let me look at the two crucial expressions "co-ordination" and "determination of standards". The contention of learned counsel for the appellant that the composite term means fixing of standards for the purpose of correlation and equating them if they vary, appears to be plausible, but is rather too restrictive and, if accepted makes the role of Parliament that of a disinterested spectator. It must be more purposive and effective. The interpretation sought to be put upon it by learned counsel for the respondents, namely, that under certain circumstances the Parliament can make a law displacing the medium of instruction prescribed by the State law by another of its choice, cuts so deeply into the State entry that it cannot be countenanced unless the entry in List I is clear and unambiguous. "To determine" is "to settle, or decide or fix". The expression "coordination" is given the following meanings, among others, in the dictionary: "to place in the same order, rank or division to place in proper position relatively to each other and to the system of which they form parts; to act in combined order for the production of a particular result". That entry enables Parliament to make a law for fixing the standards in institutions for higher education for the purpose of harmonious co-ordination of the said institutions for the achievement of the desired result,namely, the improvement of higher education. The expression co-ordination and determination. of standards" is a composite term; and the fixing up of standards for the purpose of co-ordination does not necessarily involve a particular medium of instruction. To illustrate: education cannot be imparted effectively without books, professors, students, equipment, buildings, finance, proper medium of instruction, etc. All the said matters admittedly are comprehended by the word "education", for they are the necessary concomitants of education. It would be unreasonable to hold that all the said matters fall under the heading "co-ordination and determination of standards", for, if it was so held, the entry "education'.' would be robbed of its entire content. In such a case the principle of harmonious construction should be invoked and a demarcating line drawn; the clue for drawing such a line is found in the word " co-ordination". So understood, the State can make a law for imparting education and for maintaining its standards; whereas Parliament can step in only to improve the said standards for the purpose of co- ordination. The standards of some universities may fall because of the deficiency in any of the aforesaid things. Parliament may make a law providing for facilities in respect of any or all the aforesaid matters so that the backward universities may pick up and come to the level of other advanced universities. It may also make a law for raising the general standards of all the universities. The law made by Parliament may determine the general standards in respect of the said and similar matters and provide the necessary financial and other help to enable the universities to reach the level prescribed. It may also be that the said law may provide for a machinery to enrich the language adopted as a medium of instruction by a particular university so that it may become a useful vehicle for higher education and for technological and scientific studies. If the pith and substance of the law is "'co-ordination and determination of standards" its incidental encroachment on the medium of instruction for the purpose of enriching it may probably be sustained. But in the name of co-ordination it cannot displace the medium of instruction, for, in that event, the encroachment on the subject of education is not incidental but direct. For the said entry does not permit the making of any law which allows direct interference by an outside body with the course of education in any university, but enables it generally to prescribe standards and give adventitious aids for reaching the said standards. In short, the role of a guardian angel is allotted to Parliament so that it can make a law providing a machinery to watch, advise, give financial and other help, so that the universities may perform their allotted role. 'The University Commission Act was passed in the implementation of such a role. So understood, there cannot be any possible dichotomy between the two entries.

The scheme of the Constitution also negatives the idea of legislation by Parliament in respect of medium of instruction. When the Constitution was passed, there were many fairly well developed languages in different parts of our country and they were mentioned in the Eighth Schedule to the Constitution. At that time, English was the medium of instruction at all levels and was also the official language of the administration. It was accepted on all hands that English should be replaced at all levels, but the process should be phased. Article 343 of the Constitution declares that the official language of the Union shall be Hindi in Devnagari script and it permits the use of English for all official purposes for a specified period. But in the case of education no such go- slow process was indicated, presumably, because it was left to the wisdom of the Legislatures of States and educationists to work out the programme for smooth transition. But the insistence on the replacement of English by Hindi for all official purposes, the recognition of regional languages, the omission of English in the Eighth Schedule, the direction under Art. 351 that Hindi should be enriched by a process of assimilation from the languages specified in the Eighth Schedule and from Hindustani, all indicate that the makers of the Constitution were confident that the regional languages were rich or at any rate resilient enough to be or to become convenient vehicles of instruction at all levels of education. That is why no express reservation was made for replacing English by regional languages by convenient stages. It may, therefore, be accepted that the makers of the Constitution thought that the specified regional languages would be suitable vehicles of instruction, though it may equally be conceded that they require to be enriched to meet the demands of higher education. In this context entry 66 of List I must be construed on the assumption that the regional languages would be the media of instruction in all the universities, and if so construed the law fixing the standards for co- ordination cannot displace the medium of instruction. Let me now look at it from a different angle. It is contended that English is the established medium of instruction throughout the country, that following the example of the Gujarat University other universities might follow suit, that consequently there would be a steep fall in the standards of higher education, and that if the argument of the appellant was accepted, Parliament would be a helpless spectator witnessing the debacle. In effect, on the appellant's construction, the major part of the field of co-ordination would be wiped out. This in effect was the argument of learned counsel for the respondents though couched in different phraseology. This is another way of saying that the pith and substance of such legislation made by a State prohibiting the use of English falls not tinder the subject of "education" but under the entry "co- ordination". This argument though appears to be attractive, is without legal or factual basis. If the pith and substance of the Impugned law is covered by the entry "education", the question of effacing the Union entry does not arise at all. It is an argument of policy rather than a legal construction. The simple answer is that the Constituent-Assembly did not think fit to entrust the subject of medium of instruction to Parliament, but relied upon the wisdom of the Legislatures to rise to the occasion, and enact suitable legislation. Factually, except in Gujarat, where the Legislature introduced Gujarati as the exclusive medium of instruction by an accelerated process, all other States are adopting a go-slow policy. Though that circumstance, in my view, has no relevance in construing the relevant provisions of the Constitution there is no immediate danger of all the other States abolishing English as an additional medium of instruction. I would prefer to accept the natural meaning of the word "'education" than to stretch the expression "'co-ordination" to meet a possible emergency when all the States, following a policy adopted by a State, might set their face against English. That apart, the picture drawn by learned counsel is rather extravagant. It presupposes that, but for the continuance of English as one of the media of instruction, education is bound to fall in standards and co-ordination may become impossible. But our Constitution-makers did not think so, and they did not provide for the continuance of English in the universities. Further, the standards can be maintained, perhaps with some trouble and expense' by imparting education through other media of' instruction, provided the languages are suitably enriched. The State Legislatures, and more so the universities, can be relied upon to make every reasonable attempt to maintain the standards. It cannot be assumed that the State Legislatures would function against the best interests of university education, while Parliament can safely be relied upon to act always in its interest. All the legislative bodies under our Constitution are elected on adult franchise and this Court rightly presumes that they act with wisdom and in the interests of the people they represent. If the Legislature of a State could in a particular instance act precipitately by replacing English by a regional language, Parliament also in its wisdom, if it has power to do so., may cut the Gordian knot by replacing English by Hindi in all the universities. It is after all a constitutional choice of institutions to implement a particular purpose and it is, therefore, the duty of this Court to interpret the provisions of the Constitution uninfluenced by ephemeral local conditions and situations. I would, therefore, hold that entry 11 of List IL takes in the medium of instruction and that it is not comprehended by the phraseology of entry 66 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. It follows that the State Legislature can make a law empowering the 'University to prescribe a regional language as the exclusive medium of instruction.

that power is implicit in cl. (1) of s. 4 and other clauses thereof already mentioned. Clause (27) confers an additional power on the University to promote the development of the study of Gujarati or Hindi in Devnagari script and the use of them as medium of instruction and examination. This is a composite power. It enables the University not only to develop the study of the said languages but also to use them as media of instruction. There is an essential distinction between the expression "providing" and "promoting". To promote the development of the said languages means to further their growth. It also implies some action anterior to the existence or occurrence of the thing promoted. The power of promotion confers upon the University the power to prescribe adventitious- aids for the purpose of promotion. To illustrate, Gujarati or Hindi is not the medium of instruction in the University; the said languages have not got sufficient vocabulary to express scientific and technological concepts; there are no professors who are trained to teach the said subjects in those languages- there are no books in the said languages of a standard appropriate to the needs of higher education. The University can certainly help, financially or otherwise, to enrich the said languages so as to make them suitable vehicles for conveying scientific and technological ideas. It may provide for intensive training of the professors and lecturers in those languages to enable them to have sufficient knowledge for communicating their ideas in those languages. It may give concessions in fees etc., for students who take those languages as their media of instruction instead of English or any other language. It may start a pilot college where the medium is only any of those two languages. It may in extreme cases prohibit the use of any medium other than the said two languages. There are many other ways of subsidizing and helping the promotion of the said languages. That apart, cl. (27) does not deal only with 'instruction, but also with examination. Should it be held that the power of the University to prescribe a medium of instruction is derived only from cl. (27) it should also be held that the power to prescribe a medium of instruction for examination is also derived therefrom. If so, it would lead to the anomalous position of the University not being in a position to hold examinations in any language other than the said two languages, while in the case of instruction, the affiliated colleges, if the argument of learned counsel for the respondents be correct., will be able to instruct in media other than the said two languages: the University will be absolutely powerless to examine the students of a college through the medium chosen by it. It is, therefore, obvious that cl. (27) does not in any way replace or even curtail the undoubted power of the University to prescribe a medium of instruction of its choice, but only confers an additional power and a correlative duty to promote these two languages. If so understood, the proviso also squarely fits in the scheme. What the proviso says is that English may continue to be the medium of instruction and examination in such subjects and for such period until the end of May 1966. It is enacted as a proviso to cl. (27), as, but for that proviso, English may continue to be a medium of instruction, but it cannot be the medium or the sole medium of instruction, for there is a duty cast on the University to introduce one or other of the aforesaid two languages as medium of instruction. The proviso enables the University to postpone the introduction of the aforesaid languages as media of instruction for a prescribed period. In this context, the argument based upon the use of the indefinite article in the substantive part of the clause and of the definite article in the proviso may be considered. The use of the indefinite article, it is said, shows that the power of the University is only to prescribe an additional medium, for otherwise the Legislature would have used the words "the medium" as it has done in the proviso. Grammatically the definite article "the" could not have been used in the substantive part : the definite article is used only to mark the object as before mentioned or already known or contextually particularized. That is why in the proviso the definite article is used in the con- text of the English language which is already in the field as the exclusive medium of instruction. But in the substantive part of cl. (27) the Legislature was providing for an additional power to promote one or other of the two languages mentioned therein or both of them. In that context when different languages, which can alternatively be prescribed, are mentioned, the appropriate article can only be the indefinite article. If the argument of learned counsel for the respondents be accepted, it may lead to a more serious anomaly, namely, that after the prescribed period in the proviso the University becomes powerless to introduce any language other than Gujarati or Hindi as medium of instruction and examination. This difficulty is sought to be met by the contention that the power to continue English as a medium of instruction after the period prescribed in the proviso, is necessarily implied in the proviso. The doctrine of necessary implication as applied to the law of statutory construction means an implication that is absolutely necessary and unavoidable It is not implication by conjecture. I would be attributing to the Legislature an ineptitude in drafting if I should hold that such an important power of prescribing a medium of instruction is left to be implied by construction. It would also be against the natural meaning of the phraseology used in the proviso. The Legislature in enacting cl. (27) of s. 4 must be deemed to have had knowledge that the University has prescribed English as the medium in exercise of the powers vested in it and with that knowledge the Legislature proceeded to enact in the proviso that the University could continue English as the sole medium for a prescribed period. The proviso, therefore, was enacted on the assumption of an existing power: it was not conferring the power for the first time.