Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8. Respondent No.1 has filed counter-affidavit on his behalf and on behalf of respondents 3, 4 and 5. Sri S.Sriram, learned Advocate General, inter alia, stated that these petitions have been filed on untenable interpretation of the provision of Section 29 (2) (f) of the RTE Act. He relied upon the judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the cases reported in N.K.Chauhan and others v. State of Gujarat and others6, Osmania University v. V.S.Muthurangam and others7, Rajender Singh and others v. State of U.P. and others8and Iridium Telecom Ltd. v. Motorola Inc.9. In these cases, the term 'as far as practicable' used in the Section, has been interpreted which is directory and discretionary for compliance by the State in the matter of medium of instruction. In the reply, reference has been given to Navodaya Vidyalayas as well as Kendriya Vidhyalaya Schools established in the State of Andhra Pradesh, by the Central Government wherein the medium of instruction is English. It is stated that to ensure the education to weaker sections, not accessible to English medium education in private schools, the decision has been taken to favour them as per the spirit of Article 46 of the Constitution. It is said that the Government has taken action by issuing G.O., on request of the (1977) 1 SCC 308 (1997) 10 SCC 741 (1998) 7 SCC 654 (2005) 2 SCC 145 HCJ & NJS,J parents' community, as such, it may not be amounting to imposition of medium of instruction by the State. It is contended that from next academic year commencing in June, to the desirous students of Telugu medium, necessary infrastructure and faculty shall be provided at Mandal level in every District and on request being made for, free transport to the children will be provided, if the school is not in the neighbourhood as defined in the RTE Act. It is further contended that on change of the medium of instruction, Telugu/Urdu has been made as one of the compulsory subjects in the curriculum, therefore, apprehension of the petitioner is completely misplaced.

"4.5.1. Home language/mother tongue as medium of instruction:

When possible, the medium of instruction - at least until Grade 5 but preferably till at least Grade 8 - will be the home language/mother tongue/local language. Thereafter, the home/local language shall continue to be taught as a language wherever possible. High quality textbooks, including in science, will be made available in home languages as is needed and feasible, e.g. via the Indian Translation and Interpretation Mission (see P4.8.4) or its State counterparts. In cases where such textbook material is not available, the language of transaction between teachers and students will still remain the home language when possible, even if textbooks are, e.g. in the State/regional language. The school education system will make its best effort to use the regionally preponderant home language as the medium of instruction. However, the system should also make full efforts to establish an adequate number of schools having medium of instruction catering to significant linguistic minorities in that region."

(c) and 7(4) (b) (i) and (ii) of the 1982 Act. The medium of instruction and curriculum is required to be decided by the competent authority as per the norms of the NCERT or the SCERT, as the case may be. The HCJ & NJS,J State Government is well aware that as per the provisions of the 1982 Act, they do not have power to change the medium of instruction, therefore, they proposed the amendment in the 1982 Act in Section 7 (3) and (4) and also in Section 99, by insertion of the power to change the medium of instruction into English. Thus, knowing well all these facts, issuance of the impugned G.O., on 20.11.2019 even prior to the assent on the proposed amendment, converting the medium of instruction from Telugu to English, cannot be recognised under law.

73. It is settled principle of the interpretation of statutes that the statute ought to be interpreted in the context of the object in which the provision of law was brought. The provision of Section 29 has been brought in the RTE Act in the context of the curriculum and evaluation procedure which is to be done by the academic authority taking into consideration Section 29 (2) (a) to (h) of the RTE Act. In the said context, it is used that the medium of instruction shall as far as practicable be in the child's mother tongue. In the context of the Report of the States Reorganisation Commission, 1955, the National Policy on Education, 1968, recommendations of UNESCO in 2003 and the National Curriculum Framework, 2005, it is clear that the medium of instruction in primary stages of education shall be in the mother tongue. In view of the interpretation made by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. Associated Management of English Medium Primary & Secondary Schools supra, in the context of Article 19 (1) of the Constitution of India, the freedom or choice of medium of instruction is impliedly within the freedom of speech and expression of a citizen. Therefore, in the said context, if we interpret the word "as far as practicable" used in Section 29 (2) of the RTE Act, for the purpose of medium of instruction, it gives the meaning that it should not be less interchangeable; meaning thereby, the medium of HCJ & NJS,J instruction, i.e., Telugu, continuing from decades in the State of Andhra Pradesh, shall not be changed by stroke of a pen interpreting Section 29(2) of the RTE Act in favour of the State Government. Therefore, the reliance placed on the said judgments as regards interpretation of the word "as far as practicable" is discretionary may be just, but it is not of any help to the State Government in the facts and circumstances of the case.