Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. Having regard to the National and Constitutional importance of the question arising for consideration in these petitions, the matters were referred to Division Bench under Section 9 of the Karnataka High Court Act. The Division Bench in turn, referred questions relating to the constitutional validity of the Government Order, to Full Bench under Section 7 of the Act. Before the Full Bench, the contentions of the petitioners in these petitions was that having regard to the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 29 of the Constitution of India to the aforesaid linguistic minorities to conserve their language, read with Article 350A of the Constitution, which makes it obligatory for the State and local authorities to provide adequate facilities for instruction in mother-tongue at the primary stage of education and also having regard to the right guaranteed under Article 30 of the Constitution to them to establish educational institutions of their choice, they had the right to establish and run primary schools to impart primary education to their children in their mother-tongue, and therefore that part of the Government Order which prescribed the compulsory study of Kannada for children having their primary education in their mother-tongue from the first year of the primary school and as the sole first language in the high-schools, was violative of Articles 29 and 30, and also Article 14 of the Constitution. The Full Bench has answered the questions referred for its opinion in favour of the petitioners.

"26. Thus, we can see that there is complete unanimity on the topic of primary education. The opinion is that the children must be provided with facility to have their primary education in their mother-tongue. As stated earlier, the State Reorganisation Commission attached great importance to this aspect of the matter in the context of establishment of linguistic States and it was firmly of the opinion that a constitutional duty must be cast upon each of the linguistic States to take steps for providing primary education in mother-tongue. It is in the light of this recommendation, Article 350A (extracted earlier) was incorporated into the Constitution, which casts an obligation not only on each of the State Governments but also on each of the local Authorities in each of the States to provide adequate facilities for instructions in the mother-tongue at the primary stage of education to children belonging to linguistic minority groups. In view of this Article, it is urged that it is the constitutional obligation of each and every State and also local authorities to provide facility for primary education in mother-tongue in the schools established by them or aided by them though this obligation has to be discharged by the Government and Local Authorities when it is practicable and economically feasible having regard to the number of students belonging to any particular linguistic group getting admitted to any school established by the State or Local Authority or financially aided by them. In this behalf, as stated earlier, the minimum number of students, necessary for making a provision for instruction in any language has also been specified. That being the position, if a linguistic minority group itself establishes a school, the State is under a duty to provide all facilities such as recognition and financial grant if sought for in accordance with the regulations governing the grant of recognition and aid. This is also abundantly clear from Clause (2) of Article 30 which provides that the State shall not in granting aid, discriminate against educational institutions established by a religious linguistic minority.

142. The parental right in education is the very pivotal point of a democratic system. It is the touchstone of difference between democratic education and monolithic system of cultural totalitarianism."

The State therefore should leave the option to have the primary education in mother-tongue to the parents and their children. The State cannot curtail that right and liberty.

28. Obviously, the children whose mother-tongue is the regional/official language of the State concerned and the children whose mother-tongue is a language other than that language, are dissimilarly situated in the matter of primary education. This is the unanimous opinion expressed by all, the Experts, Commissions and the Governments. The Constitution itself through Article 350A has recognised this classification. Therefore, any act of the Government to compel all the children studying in primary schools of this State including those established by linguistic minorities to study Kannada apart from being irrational and arbitrary, it is also discriminatory and therefore violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

"While Article 45 provides for the constitutional goal of free and compulsory education from 10 years of the commencement of the Constitution, Article 350A provides the rights of the linguistic minorities as regards their medium of instruction at the primary stage of education. A combined reading of these 2 provisions would indicate that the Constitution does not empower the State Government to thrust the language of the majority group as the medium of instruction for the children belonging to linguistic minority groups at the primary stage. Specific care has to be taken to teach students of minority groups at the primary stage of education in the mother-tongue of the students belonging to linguistic minority group."