Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

26. Clause 10 of Section 4 empowers the University to hold examinations and to confer degrees and diplomas on the two categories of persons set out in Sub-clauses (a) and (b). It was argued by the learned Advocate-General that the language in which the University is to hold such examinations is left to the University since the medium of examination is a matter incidental or subsidiary to the power to hold examinations. It was contended that the University has the competence to make provision as to the manner in which it should carry out its function of holding examinations and in doing so, the University can decide to hold examinations in such language or languages as it thinks fit. The contention was stressed in the form of an interrogation : If the University can hold examinations in any language or languages as it thinks fit, could it have been intended by the legislature that affiliated colleges should be entitled to adopt any medium of instruction they like irrespective of the language or languages in which the University may decide to hold examinations? This contention is however, ill-placed for two reasons. In the first instance we are not concerned in this petition with the question as to whether it is competent to the University to hold examinations in any particular language or languages irrespective of the language or languages in which affiliated colleges can legitimately give instruction to students studying in such affiliated colleges, since Mr. Daru has not challenged Statutes 207, 208 and 209 on the ground of want of competence of the University to prescribe Gujarati or Hindi as the medium of examination. Secondly, the contention begs the question which has to be answered. If on a true construction of Section 4 (27) the University is not entitled to impose Gujarati or Hindi as a medium of instruction on affiliated colleges and affiliated colleges are entitled to give instruction to students in English if they so like, it is reasonable to assume that the University will hold examinations in English for tile purpose of enabling the students in such affiliated colleges to receive degrees conferred by the University. Let us take for example the Bombay University. There is no provision in the Bombay University Act in regard to medium of instruction and examination. It is, therefore open to the Bombay University to decide to hold examinations in any language or languages it likes and equally it is open to the colleges affiliated to the Bombay University to give instruction to the Students in such language or languages as they like. Can it be argued in the case of the Bombay University that if the Bombay University decides to hold examinations in Marathi which is the official language of the State of Maharashtra in which the Bombay University is situate, the colleges affiliated to the Bombay University must adopt Marathi as the only medium of instruction and stop English as a medium of instruction on the ground that if students are continued to be instructed in English it would be impossible for them to be examined by the University? We can reasonably expect that academic institutions like Universities which are not guided or governed by any political considerations and which act only for advancing the cause of education and for the benefit of students would not refuse to hold examinations in English if under the Act affiliated colleges are permitted to continue English as a medium of instruction. It must be rioted in this connection that all that Section 4 (27) authorizes the University to do for itself is to promote the use of Gujarati or Hindi as a medium of instruction and examination and not as the only medium of instruction and examination and to discontinue English as the sole medium of instruction and examination and not as a medium of instruction and examination. We shall presently consider this aspect of the matter in some detail but it is significant to note that under Section 4 (27) the University has not been given the power to promote Gujarati or Hindi as the only medium of instruction and examination or to stop English as one of the media of instruction and examination. And this the Legislature has deliberately done for it was aware that having regard to the requirements of national unity and the fundamental right of every citizen of India, to whichever linguistic group he might belong, to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India contained in the Constitution which was soon to come into force and particularly in view of the fact that English was the medium of instruction and examination in all Universities in the country and there would have to be free transference of students and teachers from one institution of higher education to another throughout the length and breadth of the country in the interests of advancement of higher education, Gujarati or Hindi cannot be imposed as the only medium of instruction and examination for that would shut the doors of education to all those who do not know Gujarati or Hindi reasonably well but who either voluntarily or by stress of circumstances reside in the University area and make it impossible for free transference of students and teachers from one institution of higher education in the country to another and thus regard the development and advancement of higher education, for this reason the Legislature empowered the University to promote the use of Gujarati or Hindi as one of the media of instruction and examination and that too only in us own teaching institutions and to discontinue English, as the only medium of instruction and examination in its own teaching institutions. The Legislature did not empower the University to adopt Gujarati or Hindi as the only medium of examination nor did it em-power the University to stop the use of English as a medium of examination. If, therefore, affiliated colleges can under the Act give instruction to students in any language other than Gujarati or Hindi including English and the University can also under the Act hold examinations in such language, it cannot be a valid argument on construction that because the University can hold exa-(sic) in any language or languages it likes, must be spelt out in the University to im-any particular language or languages as of instruction on affiliated colleges. It must also be remembered that under Article 30(1) every (sic) religious or linguistic, has the right to establish and administer educational institutions own choice and for reasons which we will later such right includes the right to con-educational institutions in any language of its choice as a medium of instruction, if a reli-(sic) or linguistic minority is entitled to establish administer an educational institution with lish as the medium of instruction under Article 30(1), it can well be said that such right would become illusory if the University can tell the minority that it will not hold examinations in English but will hold examinations only in Gujarati Hindi. It can also be said that the refusal all the University to hold examinations in English would amount to a denial of the fundamental right of the minority under Article 30(1) to establish and administer an educational institution with English as the medium of instruction, for the and of such refusal would be that the students in such educational institution would not be able the appear at examinations held by the University and it would be impossible for them to receive degrees conferred by the University and the educational institution would, therefore, lose all utility and value and would have to cease to exist as in educational institution having regard to the provisions of Section 5 of the Act. There is, there-fore, in our opinion, no substance in the contention that from the power of the University to hold examinations in any particular language or languages a power can be spelt Out in the University in impose such language Cr languages as media of intention affiliated colleges.

27. The question whether Section 4 (27) em-

powers the University to impose or enforce Gujarati and/or Hindi as the exclusive medium of and examination whether on its own (sic) or on institutions affiliated to it can resolved from the language of that clause and not from any other considerations. A Court of law can spell out the legislative intention from the words used by the Legislature and not by speculating as to what its intention must be. The language used in Section 4 127) and the Proviso thereto makes clear that the Legislature does not give such power to the University. The Advocate General suggested that the proviso to Section 4 (27) is a substantive provision and unlike an ordinary proviso does not carve out an exception or a qualification from the substamive enacoment in Section 4(27). He argued that Clause (27) of the section empowers the University to provide Gujarati or Hindi or both as media of instruction and examination and though the clause does nut in express terms contain a corresponding duty or obligation on the part of the University to make provision for the two languages or either of them as medium of instruction and examination, and though the proviso uses the word "may" and does not use mandatory words, in effect it does so by the use of the words ''not exceeding ten years". The words "not exceeding" convey an obligation on the University not to continue English as medium of instruction and examination beyond the prescribed period. We cannot agree with the learned Advocate-General that the clause and the proviso enact an obligation or a duly. To read the proviso in the way he does would be to read into if something that is not there and to overlook certain words used therein and to omit to give them their true and full meaning. When the Legislature passed the Act in 1949, English language, all throughout the Province of Bombay including the region which is included in the University area, was the only and the sole medium of instruction and examination. The aim of clause (27) was to promote the development of study of Gujarati which was the language of the majority in this region. The Legislature gave power to the University to promote and to encourage the study of Gujarati or Hindi or both and also to promote the use of them or either of them as a medium of instruction. It should be noted that the words used in Clause (27) are "a medium of instruction" and not "the medium of instruction". But it appears from the proviso that the legislature was not unaware of the difficulties that the University would have to encounter in making at once prevision for Gujarati or Hindi as a medium in higher education of which till then English was the only medium of instruction. Therefore, though it empowered the University by clause (27) to promote (he use of Gujarati or Hindi as a medium, it, at the same time, also empowered the University through the proviso "to continue" English as "the medium of instruction" during the transitional period, not exceeding ten years. This construction is consistent with the words used In Clause (27) and the proviso viz. "a medium of instruction" in the clause and 'the medium of instruction" in the proviso, the use of different articles in them being deliberate and the words "may" and "continue" in the proviso. The construction offered by the learned Advocate General overlooks these words and their significance. If the Legislature wanted to empower the University to provide for Gujarati or Hindi or both, as the learned Advocate General argued, as the media of instruction in place of English and do away wite English, there was nothing easier for it than to provide in explicit language that the University shall or shall have power to provide for Gujarati or Hindi as the medium of instruction in place at.d stead of English, at such date and in such subjects as it thinks fit. There would have been no necessity then to enact the proviso. While construing an enactment the Court 'must as far as possible give meaning to all words contained in such enactment. If the words and the use of the articles 'a' and 'the' made in the clause and the proviso were given their meaning, the object and the intention of the Legislature in enacting them in the manner they have been done become at once clear. As already observed the clause uses the word "promote" not "enforce" or "impose". That has been done deliberately and not accidentally or through mistake. It is in connection with the word "pro-mole" that the words "a medium of instruction" are used again deliberately, for, the intention of the Legislature was to empower the University to promote the use of Gujarati or Hindi as 'a' and not 'the' medium, the only or exclusive medium, That was why it used also the word "promote" and not "enforce" or "impose". This shows that the intention of the Legislature was to promote the use of Gujarati or Hindi as an alternative medium along with the other language, viz., English, which was then "the" medium, the only medium of instruction. This construction also makes clear why the proviso became necessary. Having given power to promote the use of Gujarati or Hindi as "a medium", the Legislature realized the difficulties of the University in making Gujarati or Hindi as a medium of instruction and examination at once. Since English was the only medium of instruction and examination, it would be difficult to expect the students to take either instruction or examination in a language in which instruction was not given so far. Therefore, the proviso enacted that English may be continued, notwithstanding Clause (27) for a period not exceeding ten years, as "the" medium of instruction i.e-, the exclusive medium as hereto before. In this view even if it were held that instruction means and includes instruction not only in the University colleges and other institutions established by the University but also affiliated colleges as well, the only power given to University was to provide for Gujarati or Hindi as one of the media of instruction and examination and not as the only and exclusive medium prohibiting English language altogether as a medium of instruction and examination.

36. The contention of Mr. Daru broadly was that the words "subject to the provisions or en-tries 63, 64, 65 and 66 of List 1" operate as a limitation on the legislative competence of the State Legislature under entry 11 of LIST II and that the matters covered by entries 63, 64, 65 & 66 of List I are excepted from entry 11 of List II and are therefore, not within the legislative competence of the State Legislature. Mr. Dara urged that the subject of medium of instruction falls within entry 66 of List I or is at any rate ancillary or subsidiary to the subject matter or entry 66 of List I and is, therefore, excluded from entry 11 of List II. The State Legislature has, therefore, no competence to legislate on the subject of medium of instruction and any enactment by the State Legislature deal with the subject of medium of instruction would accordingly be ultra vires the State Legislature by reason of Clause (1) of Article 246. Mr. Amin and the learned Advocate General on the other hand contended that the Subject of medium of instruction falls exclusively within entry 11 of List II and does not fall within entry 68 of List I and that the State Legislature cannot, therefore, in legislating on the subject of medium of instruction be accused of encroaching in the Parliamentary field set out in entry 66 of List I. Mr. Amin and the learned Advocate General also put forward an alternative contention namely that even if the subject of medium of instruction falls Within entry 68 to List I or can be regarded as ancillary or subsidiary to the subject matter of entry 66 of List I, the State Legislature is yet competent to legislate on the subject of medium of instruction so long as Parliament has not occupied the field by its own legislation. This contention turned on the construction of the words "subject to the provisions of entries 63, 64, 65 and 66 of List I" in entry 11 of List II. According to Mr. Amin and the learned Advocate General these words do not have the effect of taking out Of entry 11 of List II the matters covered by entries 63 64, 65 and 66 of List I but they mean only that if the Parliament has already occupied the field, the State Legislature would he incompetent to legislature on those matters. Mr. Amin and the learned Advocate-General contended that since Parliament has not occupied the field by legislating on the subject of medim of instruction, the State Legislature would be competent to deal with the subjec of medium of instruction in any legislation it may make an entment of the State Legislature dealing with the subject of medium of instruction would not be ultra vires the State Legislature. They also urged that even if the subject of medium of instruction falls within entry 66 of List I or is regarded as ancillary or subsidiary to the subject matter of entry 66 of List I. the pith and substance of the impugned provision read in he context of the Act if education including universities and that the impugned provision is, therefore, not ultra vires the State Legislature on the ground that it incidentally encroaches is the field of entry 66 of List I. Mr. Daru rejoined by contending that since the subject of medium of instruction is excepted out of entry 11 of List II by reason of the words "subject to the provisions of entries 63, 64, 65 and 68 of List I" the State Legislature cannot even under the doctrine of pith and substance legislate in regard to the subject of medium to instruction and that in any event the impugned provision cannot be said to be an incidental encroachment in the field of entry 66 of List I necessary for effective legislation by the State Legislature in regard to the University and constitutes a deliberate intrusion in the field of entry 66 of List J and must, therefore, be held to be ultra vires the State Legislature. These were broadly the rival contentions and we shall now proceed to examine them in the light of the principles mentioned at the commencement of the discussion.

"It is within the competence of the Central Legislature to provide for matters which may otherwise fall within the competence of the Provincial Legislature if they are necessarily incidental to the effective legislation by the Central Legislature on a subject of legislation expressly within its power."

Can it be said that the provision regarding medium of instruction and examination in Section 4 (27) with the new proviso was necessarily incidental to the effective legislation by the State Legislature on the subject of the Gujarat University under entry 11 of List II? Was it necessary for the effective legislation by the State Legislature on the subject of the Gujarat University that it should incidentally, provide for the subject of medium of instruction and examination in the Gujarat University? The answer is in the negative and is best illustrated by a reference to other Acts passed by State Legislatures establishing new Universities or dealing with existing Universities. There are Acts recently passed by State Legislatures such as the Maharaja Sayajirao University of Baroda Act, 1949, the Calcutta University Act, 1931. and the Bombay University Act, 1953. In none of these Acts is there any provision relating to medium of instruction and examination. It is obvious that the State Legislatures passing these Acts did not consider it necessary for effective legislation on the subjects of the respective Universities to lay down a particular language as a medium of instruction awl examination or to place an embargo on any particular language as a medium of instruction and examination. The Shrimati Nathibai Damodar Thackersey Women's University Act, 1949, was brought into force on the same day as the Gujarat University Act, 1949, but this Act also does not contain any such provision as Section 4(27) or the proviso prescribing a particular language as a medium of instruction and examination or prohibiting a particular language as a medium of instruction and examination. In fact numerous Acts establishing Universities can be cited in which the State Legislatures did not consider it necessary to lay down or to prohibit any particular medium of instruction and examination and left it to the Universities to decide which language they should adopt as a medium of instruction and examination. Even in the Vishva Bharati Act, 1956, Parliament did not think it necessary for effective legislation on the subject of the Visbva Bharati University to provide for the medium of instructor and examination. These Acts show that the provision as regards medium of instruction and examination cannot be said to be necessarily incidental to effective legislation On the subject of Universities. It is not altogether insignificant, as Mr. Daru informs us, and that has not been contradicted either by Mr. Amin or by the learned Advocate-General that there is hardly any University Act in any State in India which has a provision akin to Section 4 (27) laying down any particular language as a medium of instruction and examination or forbidding the use of any particular language as a medium of instruction and examination. How can under these circumstances any contention be maintained that in the present case it was necessarily incidental to the effective legislation by the State Legislature on the subject of the Gujarat University that a provision should be made in regard to medium of instruction and examination in the Gujarat University? Such a provision could not, in our opinion, be said to be an Incidental encroachment on the field of entry 68 of List I. Of course, at the date when the Gujarat University Act, 1949, was enacted the Constitution was not in force and the entire subject of education including Universities other than the Benaras Hindu University and the Aligarh Muslim University, being within the Legislative competence of the State Legislature it was competent to enact a provision relating to medium of instruction and examination in the Gujarat University. But the new proviso read with the substantive part of Section 4 (27) was certainly not a provision necessarily incidental to the effective legislation by the State Legislature on the subject of Gujarat University and could not be said to be an incidental encroachment on the field of entry 66 of List I so as to be saved under the doctrine of pith and substance. We reach the same conclusion even if we consider the object or purpose of Section 4 (27) with the new proviso. The Gujarat University was established both as a teaching and affiliating University with a view to decentralizing and reorganizing higher education in the Province of Bombay. There was until then one single University, the University of Bombay, for the whole Province of Bombay and the object or purpose of the Gujarat University Act, 1949, was to establish a beaching and affiliating University for the region of Gujarat as a step in the decentralization and reorganization of higher education in the Province of Bombay. The University of Bombay existed for the benefit of all students who resided in the Province of Bombay or who came to the Province of Bombay in pursuit of education, whether they belonged to one linguistic group or the other. The University of Bombay, therefore, followed as a medium of instruction and examination English which was the language of all other Universities in the country so that no student would be handicapped by reason of having to re-side in the Province of Bombay and receive education in the University of Bombay. The Gujarat University was established to serve the identical purpose in the region of Gujarat as the University of Bombay the reason for the establishment being nothing else than decentralization and reorganization of higher education in the Province of Bombay. The University was, therefore, expected to cater to the needs of all students who might re-side in the region of Gujarat or who might choose to come to Gujarat for their education, whatever be their language, in the same manner as the University of Bombay did prior to the establishment of this University. There was no provision in the Bombay University Act 1928, which was the Act in force at the time when the Gujarat University Act, 1949, was passed relating to medium of Instruction and examination and no provision need, therefore, have been made in the Gujarat University Act, 1949 in regard to medium of instruction-and examination. Poona and Karnatak Universities were also established with a view to decentralizing and reorganizing higher education in the Province of Bombay and no provision regarding medium of instruction and examination was made in the Acts establishing those Universities since they too were established as a measure of decentralization and reorganization of higher education in the Province of Bombay and were intended to take the place of the University of Bombay in their respective areas of operation. The object or purpose of Section 4 (27) with the old proviso was, therefore, not to enact something which was necessarily incidental to effective legislation on the subject of the Gujarat University but to make a deliberate provision in regard to medium of instruction and examination which provision was not to be found in the Bombay University Act, 1928, and was not considered necessary in any of the Acts establishing the aforesaid Universities. The old proviso being substituted by the new proviso, by Act IV of 1961, the object or purpose of Section 4 (27) with the new proviso would remain the same and if that is the object or purpose of Section 4 (27) with the new proviso, as we find it is, it is obvious that the pith and substance of Section 4 (27) with the new proviso does not fall within entry 11 of List II but falls clearly within entry 66 of List I. It is clear that in enacting Section 4 (27) with the new proviso, the State Legislature has under the guise or pretence of an exercise of its own power of legislating on the subject of education including Universities attempted to carry out an object or purpose which is beyond its powers and a trespass on the exclusive field of Parliament. The effect of Section 4(27) with the new proviso is likely to interfere with co-ordination and determination of standards in institutions of higher education in the country and it is clear, therefore, that Section 4 (27) with the new proviso is by its effect calculated to encroach upon the field of entry 66 of List I which is exclusively within the domain of Parliamentary legislation. The State Legislature has, in our opinion, attempted to make use of its power to legislate under entry 11 of List II in such a manner as materially to interfere with the exclusive power of Parliament under entry 66 of List I and the new proviso is, therefore, ultra vires the competence of the State Legislature and cannot be saved by the doctrine of pith and substance. If Parliament finds it necessary to legislate in regard to the subject of medium of instruction and examination in Universities and colleges for the purpose of co-ordinating and determining standards in Universities and colleges -- which parliament can certainly do under entry 66 of List I Section 4 (27) read with the new proviso would materially hamper or stand in the way of the exercise of such power by Parliament. It is clear that if an use is attempted to be made by a State Legislature of its legislative power in such a manner as to materially interfere with Parliamentary power, the action of the State Legislature would be ultra vires 1939 AC 117 : (AIR 1939, PC 53) (supra). Since in our opinion Section 4 (27) with the new proviso is calculated by its effect to interfere materially with the Parliamentary power under entry 68 of List I, the doctrine of pith and substance cannot help the University and the State in repelling the contention as regards the invalidity of the new proviso enacted by Act IV of 1901. The new proviso enacted by Act IV of 1961, is, therefore, in our opinion, null and void as being beyond the legislative competence of the State Legislature.