Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.71 seconds)Article 343 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 344 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Official Languages Act, 1963
Section 3 in The Official Languages Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Union Of India & Ors vs Murasoli Maran on 6 December, 1976
12. The question considering the compulsory training in official language, namely, Hindi was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Union of India v. Murasoli Maran, AIR 1977 SC 225. While considering the scope of Articles 343 and 344 of the Constitution of India, it was held by the Apex Court that a Commission shall be constituted for recommendation to the President as to the progressive use of the Hindi language for the official purposes of the Union and restrictions on the use of the English language for all or any of the official purposes of the. Union and the language to be used for all or any of the purposes mentioned in Article 348. Article 344 provides tha a Committee shall be constituted and it shall be the duty of the Committee to examine the recommendations of the Commission consti-tuted under Article 344(1) and to report to the President their opition thereon. Article 344(6) provides that notwithstanding anything in Article 343, the President may, after consideration of the report referred to in Clause (5), issue directions in accordance with the whole or any part of that report. Article 351 provides that it shall be the duty of the Union to promote the spread of the Hindi 'language, to develop it so that it may serve as medum of expression for all the elements of the composite culture of India. In exercise of the powers conferred on the Parliament by Article 343(3) of the Constitution, the Parliament passed the Official Languages Act, 1963. This Act was amended in the year 1968 and Sub-section (4) was added to Section 3. Sub-section (4) of Section 3 amended is reproduced below:--
Article 348 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 35A in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 8 in The Official Languages Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Hindi Hitrakshak Samiti And Ors vs Union Of India And Ors on 26 February, 1990
7. Shri Roman submitted that the students have no right to claim medium of instructions. They cannot claim that they have a right to take up the test in Hindi. Shri Roman relied upon a decision in the case of Hindi Hitrakshak Samiti v. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 851. He submitted that denial of examination in any particular language, that is, Hindi or any other regional language does not amount to denial on the ground of language and is not violative of Article 29(2) of the Constitution of India. He submitted that in view of the aforesaid judgment, writ petition for direction to hold the examination in Hindi is not maintainable. He also submitted that the matter relates to policy of imparting instructions in English and no writ lies against the respondents;