advocatemmmohan

My photo

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN -  Practicing both IN CIVIL, CRIMINAL AND FAMILY LAWS,Etc.,

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - FOR KNOWLEDGE IN LAW & FOR LEGAL OPINIONS - SHARE THIS

Monday, September 15, 2014

Sec.3 of Uttar Pradesh Official Language Act (amendement ) 1989 - Notification declaring the Urdu as second language - Challenged as unconstitutional - High court dismissed the writ - Apex court held that We hold, as we must, that neither insertion of Section 3 in the 1989 Amendment Act nor the impugned notification in pursuance of the above provision notifying Urdu as the second language for seven purposes is unconstitutional. = CIVIL APPEAL NO.459 OF 1997 U.P. Hindi Sahitya Sammelan … Appellant Versus State of U.P. … Respondent = 2014 - Sept. Month- http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41872

 Sec.3 of Uttar Pradesh Official Language Act (amendement ) 1989 - Notification declaring the Urdu as second language - Challenged  as unconstitutional - High court dismissed the writ - Apex court held that We hold, as we must, that neither insertion of Section 3 in  the 1989 Amendment Act nor the impugned notification in pursuance of  the  above provision notifying Urdu as  the  second  language  for  seven  purposes  is unconstitutional. =

 On 07.04.1982, an Ordinance called the  Uttar  Pradesh  Official
Language (Amendment)  Ordinance,  1982  was  promulgated  by  the  Governor.
Section 2 of the Ordinance provided that in the 1951 Act,
after  Section  2,
the following Section (deemed Section 3) shall be inserted:
In the interest of Urdu speaking people, Urdu  language  shall  be  used  as
second language, in addition to Hindi for such purposes as are specified  in
the Schedule.

Section 3 of the  Ordinance  provided  that  in  the  Principal  Act,  after
Section 3, as inserted by the Ordinance, the  following  Schedule  shall  be
inserted:

1. Entertaining application in Urdu presented by the members of the public.
2.  Receiving documents in Urdu presented  for  registration  with  a  Hindi
copy thereof.
3.    Publication   of   important   Government   Rules,   Regulation    and
Notifications.
4.   Publication of important Government Advertisements.
5.  Translation of Gazette in Urdu.

4.          The above Ordinance was replaced by the U.P.  Official  Language
(Amendment)  (3rd)  Ordinance,  1983  (U.P.  Ordinance  44  of  1983).  
The
constitutionality of U.P. Ordinance No.44 of 1983 was put  in  issue  before
the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench in Writ Petition No.285 of  1984  by
the present appellant U.P. Hindi Sahitya Sammelan.
This writ  petition  was
dismissed by the Division Bench of  the  Allahabad  High  Court,  though  by
separate judgments.
filed another writ petition before the Allahabad High  Court,
Lucknow Bench challenging the 1989  Amendment  Act  and  Notification  dated
07.10.1989. =
The Division Bench by its order dated 16.08.1996  dismissed  the
writ petition holding as follows:
      In view of the learned third Judge, Hon’ble  Brijesh  Kumar,  J.,  the
U.P. Official Language (Amendment ) Act,  I989  (U.P.  Act  No.28  of  1989)
adding Section 3 in the U.P. Official Language  Act,  1951  is  held  to  be
intra vires. It is further heId that the impugned enactment does not  suffer
from the vice of excessive delegation. The impugned  enactment  as  well  as
the notification are held valid and constitutional.=

 Indian language laws are  not  rigid  but  accommodative  –  the
object being to secure linguistic secularism.
44.         We hold, as we must, that neither insertion of Section 3 in  the
1989 Amendment Act nor the impugned notification in pursuance of  the  above
provision notifying Urdu as  the  second  language  for  seven  purposes  is
unconstitutional.
45.         There is no merit in the appeal and  it  is  dismissed  with  no
order as to costs.

   2014 - Sept. Month-     http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41872

                                                         REPORTABLE

                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                         CIVIL APPEAL NO.459 OF 1997



U.P. Hindi Sahitya Sammelan                           … Appellant


                                   Versus

State of U.P.                                        … Respondent



                                  JUDGMENT


R.M. LODHA, CJI.



            On 12.11.1951, the Uttar Pradesh  Official  Language  Act,  1951
(U.P. Act No.XXVI of 1951) (for short, ‘1951 Act’) was published in  Gazette
Extraordinary and came into force.  1951 Act was passed in  Hindi   by   the
U.P. Legislative Assembly on 27.09.1951 and by the U.P  Legislative  Council
on 29.09.1951.  It received the assent of the Governor on 05.11.1951.   1951
Act is enacted by the State  Legislature  to  provide   for    adoption   of
Hindi  as the language to be  used  for  the  official  purposes  and  other
matters of the State of Uttar Pradesh.
2.          Section 2 of the 1951 Act reads as under:

2. Hindi to be official language of  the  State.—Without  prejudice  to  the
provisions of Articles 346 and 347 of the Constitution,  Hindi  in  Devnagri
script shall, with effect from such date, as the State  Government  may,  by
notification in the  official  Gazette,  appoint  in  this  behalf,  be  the
language used in respect of the following :—
(a)   (i) ordinances promulgated under Article 213 of the     Constitution.
      (ii) orders, rules regulations and  bye-laws  issued  by    the  State
Government under the Constitution of  India    or  under  any  law  made  by
Parliament or the      Legislature of the State, and
(b)    all or any of the official  purposes  of  the  State;  and  different
dates may be appointed  for  different  purposes  in  clauses  (a)  and  (b)
aforesaid.

A proviso was inserted to above Section 2 by U.P.  Act  No.9  of  1969.   It
reads, “Provided that the State Government may by general or special  order,
in this behalf, permit the use of the international form of Indian  numerals
for any official purpose of the State.”

3.          On 07.04.1982, an Ordinance called the  Uttar  Pradesh  Official
Language (Amendment)  Ordinance,  1982  was  promulgated  by  the  Governor.
Section 2 of the Ordinance provided that in the 1951 Act, after  Section  2,
the following Section (deemed Section 3) shall be inserted:
In the interest of Urdu speaking people, Urdu  language  shall  be  used  as
second language, in addition to Hindi for such purposes as are specified  in
the Schedule.

Section 3 of the  Ordinance  provided  that  in  the  Principal  Act,  after
Section 3, as inserted by the Ordinance, the  following  Schedule  shall  be
inserted:

1. Entertaining application in Urdu presented by the members of the public.
2.  Receiving documents in Urdu presented  for  registration  with  a  Hindi
copy thereof.
3.    Publication   of   important   Government   Rules,   Regulation    and
Notifications.
4.   Publication of important Government Advertisements.
5.  Translation of Gazette in Urdu.

4.          The above Ordinance was replaced by the U.P.  Official  Language
(Amendment)  (3rd)  Ordinance,  1983  (U.P.  Ordinance  44  of  1983).   The
constitutionality of U.P. Ordinance No.44 of 1983 was put  in  issue  before
the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench in Writ Petition No.285 of  1984  by
the present appellant U.P. Hindi Sahitya Sammelan.  This writ  petition  was
dismissed by the Division Bench of  the  Allahabad  High  Court,  though  by
separate judgments.
5.          On 07.10.1989, the Uttar Pradesh Official  Language  (Amendment)
Act, 1989 (U.P. Act No.28 of 1989) (for short, “1989  Amendment  Act”)  came
into effect.  1989 Amendment Act was enacted  by  the  U.P.  Legislature  to
amend 1951 Act.  By  this  Amendment  Act,  Section  3  was  inserted  after
Section 2 in 1951  Act  providing  for  Urdu  language  as  second  official
language for such purposes as may be notified by the State  Government  from
time to time.
6.          In pursuance of the power conferred upon  the  State  Government
to notify Urdu as second official  language  for  specified   purposes,  the
State Government issued a notification on 07.10.1989  notifying use of  Urdu
language as second official language for the following seven purposes:

1. Entertaining petitions and applications in Urdu and  replies  thereof  in
Urdu,

2. receiving documents written in Urdu by the Registration office,

3. publication of important Government Rules, Regulations and  Notifications
in Urdu also,

4. issuing Government orders and circulars  of  public  importance  in  Urdu
also,

5. publication of important Government advertisements in Urdu also,

publication of Urdu translation also of the Gazette,
exhibition of important signposts in Urdu.


7.          Appellant, U.P. Hindi Sahitya Sammelan (Civil Appeal  No.459  of
1997), which had filed Writ Petition  No.285  of  1984  earlier  before  the
Allahabad High Court challenging the  constitutionality  of  U.P.  Ordinance
No.44 of 1983, filed another writ petition before the Allahabad High  Court,
Lucknow Bench challenging the 1989  Amendment  Act  and  Notification  dated
07.10.1989.
8.          This writ petition was heard by the  Division  Bench  comprising
of S.N. Sahay and D.K. Trivedi, JJ.
9.          S.N. Sahay, J. in his judgment held that the 1989 Amendment  Act
and the notification impugned in the writ  petition  were  ultra  vires  and
liable to be struck down.  He, however, observed that the State  Legislature
shall not be precluded from making any law in future with  respect  to  Urdu
in  accordance  with  the  provisions  of  Articles  345  and  347  of   the
Constitution.
10.         D.K. Trivedi, J., on the other hand, did  not  concur  with  the
view of S.N. Sahay, J.  He, in his separate judgment,  held  that  the  1989
Amendment Act and the notification impugned in the  writ  petition  did  not
suffer from the constitutional vice and the writ petition was liable  to  be
dismissed.
11.         In view of the difference of opinion between the Members of  the
Bench, the Bench directed the papers to be laid before the Chief Justice  of
the High Court for referring the following questions to a  third  Judge  for
his opinion:

1. Whether the impugned enactment can  be  said  to  be  a  valid  piece  of
legislation within the meaning of Article 345 of the Constitution?

2. Whether the impugned notification suffers  from  the  vice  of  excessive
delegation ?

3. Whether the impugned enactment and the impugned  notification  are  valid
and constitutional or ultra vires?


12.         The Chief Justice of the High Court then referred the matter  to
the third Judge, Brijesh Kumar, J. (as His Lordship then was) for answer  to
the above questions.
13.         Brijesh Kumar, J. answered the  questions  referred  to  him  as
follows:
(1) That while enacting law to officially recognise a  second  language  for
use in  the  State,  the  State  Legislature  shall  have  to  consider  the
provisions of Articles 345 and 347  of  the  Constitution  by  reading  them
together; the impugned enactment is, however, valid piece of legislation  in
view of the judgment of the Division Bench in Writ Petition No. 285/84.

2) The impugned enactment does not suffer from the
vice of excessive delegation.

(3) In view of the answers given on questions No. (1) and (2), I  find  that
the  impugned  enactment  as  well  as  the  notification  are   valid   and
constitutional.

14.         In light of the answers given by the  third  Judge,  the  matter
was placed before the Division Bench for  appropriate  orders  on  the  writ
petition.
15.         The Division Bench by its order dated 16.08.1996  dismissed  the
writ petition holding as follows:
      In view of the learned third Judge, Hon’ble  Brijesh  Kumar,  J.,  the
U.P. Official Language (Amendment ) Act,  I989  (U.P.  Act  No.28  of  1989)
adding Section 3 in the U.P. Official Language  Act,  1951  is  held  to  be
intra vires. It is further heId that the impugned enactment does not  suffer
from the vice of excessive delegation. The impugned  enactment  as  well  as
the notification are held valid and constitutional.

      In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. No  order  as
to costs.


16.         Aggrieved by the judgment and order of the Allahabad High  Court
dated 16.08.1996,  the  present  appellant  filed  special  leave  petition.
Leave was granted by this Court on 27.01.1997.
17.         On 02.09.2003, the appeal was listed for  hearing  before  a  2-
Judge Bench of this Court.  The Bench felt that having regard to the  nature
of controversy and the important question of law arising in the  matter,  it
was appropriate that matter should be heard by a Bench of 3-Judges.
18.             It was then that the matter was listed  before  the  3-Judge
Bench on 29.10.2003.  On that day, the Court was of  the  opinion  that  the
appeal needed to be heard by a Bench of 5-Judges as it involves  substantial
question of law as to the interpretation of Articles  345  and  347  of  the
Constitution.   This  is  how  the   appeal   has   come   up   before   us.
           19.         Part XVII? of the Constitution  deals  with  official
language.  It  has  four  chapters.   Chapter  I  relates  to  the  official
language of the Union,   Chapter II, Chapter III and Chapter  IV  relate  to
regional languages, language of the Supreme  Court,  High  Courts  etc.  and
Special Directive respectively.
20.         It is apposite here to briefly notice  the  views  of  prominent
authors with regard to Part  XVII  of  the  Constitution.   It  is  commonly
believed that the keenest controversy in the  Constituent  Assembly  was  in
regard to the official language.  Shri B. Shiva Rao (The  Project  Committee
Chairman) in “The Framing of  India’s  Constitution   -  A  Study”  records:
“This issue produced so much heat and gave rise  to  such  violent  feelings
that it was felt necessary  from  the  outset  to  keep  it  out  of  direct
discussion in the Assembly.  The leaders made every effort to settle  it  on
the basis of general accord, but often it  seemed  as  though  a  settlement
might not be possible. It was not until towards the end of the  constitution
making process that some kind of agreement could be reached.” In Chapter  26
of this volume, it is further recorded :

Feelings on the language issue developed formidably almost from the  opening
of the Constituent Assembly. It was, however, not the Hindi versus  Urdu  or
Hindi versus Hindustani controversy that was raised at this time; there  was
general agreement that  Hindustani  might  be  the  name  for  the  national
language. When the question of the setting up of a committee  on  the  rules
of procedure was discussed, R. V.  Dhulekar  moved  an  amendment  proposing
that the committee should frame rules in Hindustani and not in English.  The
Chairman requested him to speak  in  English,  as  many  members  could  not
understand Hindustani;  but  Dhulekar  not  only  insisted  on  speaking  in
Hindustani but made the remark that those who did not  know  Hindustani  had
no right to stay in  India  and  were  not  worthy  to  be  members  of  the
Assembly. The Chairman cut the discussion short by ruling the amendment  out
of order and prohibiting all further discussion'; but the issue was  revived
when the report of the committee  came  up  for  discussion.  The  committee
recommended  that  in  the  Assembly  business  should  be   transacted   in
Hindustani (Hindi or Urdu) or English, but the  Chairman  was  permitted  to
allow any member unacquainted with these languages to. address the  Assembly
in his mother tongue. The official records of the Assembly were to  be  kept
in Urdu, Hindi and English.

21.         In Vol. IV of the  Framing  of  India’s  Constitution  –  Select
Documents,  Chapter  13  highlights  the  provisions  relating  to  Official
Language.  It  is  stated  therein   that  neither  the  draft  Constitution
prepared by the Constitutional Adviser nor the version  as  settled  by  the
Drafting Committee contained any provisions relating to  official  language,
but they contained provisions as to the language  or  the  languages  to  be
used in the Union Parliament and the State Legislatures. The language  issue
figured  prominently  during   the   general   discussion   on   the   Draft
Constitution; and the sharp differences of opinion which  developed  in  the
course of the debate revealed the extent of feeling which the  question  had
engendered.  Towards  the  end  of  August,  1949,  Munshi  and  Gopalaswami
Ayyangar prepared detailed draft compromise provisions for inclusion in  the
Draft  Constitution.    The   draft  provisions  on  the  official  language
prepared by  Munshi and Gopalaswami Ayyangar  as  revised  by  the  Drafting
Committee had four chapters, Language  of  the  Union,  Regional  languages,
Language of Supreme Court and High Courts etc. and Special Directive.
22.         Granville Austin in the Indian Constitution – Cornerstone  of  a
Nation, has described Munshi–Ayyangar formula  as  half-hearted  compromise.
He says that it was a compromise between  opinions  which  were  not  easily
reconcilable. There were two basic principles behind the  formula,  one  “we
should select one of the languages in India as the common  language  of  the
whole of India”. The second principle was “that the numerals to be used  for
all official Union purposes should be what have been described as  the  all-
India forms of Indian numerals.”   The members of  the  Assembly  voted  for
the Munshi-Ayyangar formula.
23.         H. M. Seervai in  Constitutional  Law  of  India  –  A  Critical
Commentary (Fourth Edition)¥  has also given a brief historical  account  of
the language issue that erupted in the course of  discussion  on  the  Draft
Constitution.    H. M. Seervai states that having regard to the place  given
to the Union in our Constitution, the importance of  the  official  language
of the Union cannot be overrated.  Drawing the distinction  between  English
and Hindi, on the one hand, and other languages mentioned in Schedule  VIII,
on the other hand, the learned author says:

English  was  and  is  a  de  facto  medium  of   instruction   in   various
Universities.  The  Constitution  and  the  Official  Languages   Act   have
continued its use for official purposes  of the Union of  India.  Therefore,
English stands in a class by  itself,  because  of  historical  reasons  and
because of express constitutional and  legislative  provisions.  Hindi  also
occupies a position by itself. It is the official language of the  Union  of
India and the Constitution contemplates that  it  should  gradually  replace
English. Therefore, Hindi is also in  a  class  by  itself.  But  the  other
languages  mentioned  in  Sch.  VIII  stand  on  a  different  footing.  The
retention of English as a  medium  is  justified  and  the  substitution  of
English by Hindi can be justified  for  reasons  mentioned  above.  But  the
substitution of any other regional language for English cannot be  justified
because there would be other languages spoken  by  large  groups  of  people
which are capable of being the media of instruction in  Universities.  Since
there are large numbers of  people  in  the  city  whose  mother  tongue  is
Marathi, Gujarati, Hindi, Tamil, Malayalam, and Urdu, it would be  difficult
to justify the selection of one or more of these languages as  a  medium  of
instruction to the exclusion of the others, if the  principle  of  selection
is that University education should be in the mother tongue.

24.          Acharya  Dr.  Durga  Das  Basu,  in  his  commentary   on   the
Constitution of India, Volume 9, 2011 while dealing  with  Part  XVII  under
the sub-title “Need for a National Language” observes that the  Constitution
makers failed to declare one language as the national language of India  and
what has been provided in the Constitution is mainly  a  compromise  between
the diverse claims8.   Dr. Basu then observes that what  has  been  provided
in the Constitution is not a  national  language  but  –  (a)  an  “official
language” for the Union (Articles 343-344); (b) regional official  languages
for the States  (Articles  345-347);  and  (c)  official  language  (a)  for
purposes of proceedings in the Supreme Court and High  Courts  and  (b)  for
Bills, Acts, Ordinances,  Regulations,  bye-laws  at  the  Union  and  State
level.  Dr. Basu in his treatise quotes the Constitutional Law of  India  by
T.K. Tope*, wherein the author has stated that Hindi has not  been  accepted
as the national language by the Constitution; the Constitution has not  laid
down any language as the national language.
25.         Now, it is time to turn to the two Articles,  Articles  345  and
347, which have fallen  for  consideration  on  the  issue,  whether  it  is
constitutional for the U.P. Legislative Assembly  to  declare  Urdu  as  the
second official  language  through  the  1989  Amendment  Act  once  it  has
declared Hindi as the official language in 1951 under  Article  345  of  the
Constitution of India.  The submission by Mr. Shyam  Divan,  learned  senior
counsel  for  the  appellant,  is  that  having  regard   to   the   special
constitutional status of the Hindi language,  where  the  Legislature  of  a
State by law adopts Hindi as the official language, two  things  necessarily
follow (one) the State Legislature is precluded  from  de-recognising  Hindi
as an official language and (two) the State Legislature  is  precluded  from
adopting any other official language.  The argument of  the  learned  senior
counsel for the appellant is founded on the premise that Part  XVII  of  the
Constitution constitutes complete scheme with regard to  official  language.
The two key features of Part XVII,  according  to  learned  senior  counsel,
are: a special status to the Hindi language and a special role of  balancing
entrusted to the President on the sensitive and potentially  divisive  issue
of language.
26.         What logically follows from the argument of Mr. Shyam  Divan  is
that the text of Article 345 gives two options  to  the  State  Legislature,
one, adoption of any one or more of  the  languages  in  use  in  the  State
(Option 1) and the other, Hindi (Option 2) and once Option 2  is  exercised,
the power of the State Legislature gets exhausted.   If the argument of  Mr.
Shyam Divan is accepted, it would  mean  that  the  use  of  the  word  “or”
signifies that Option 1 would be available to the Legislature of State  only
if it does not  go  in  for  Option  2.   Once  the  State  Legislature  has
exercised Option 2, and  adopted Hindi as the language to be  used  for  all
or any of the official purposes of the State, it cannot go  down  the  route
of Option 1.  We find it difficult  to  accept  the  submission  of  learned
senior counsel.  Merely because Hindi is mentioned explicitly or  separately
and it is adopted as official language by the State, we do  not  think  that
the Constitution forecloses the State  Legislature’s  option  to  adopt  any
other language in use in the State as official language.
27.         Nothing in Article 345, in our view, bars declaring one or  more
of the languages in use in the State, in addition to Hindi,  as  the  second
official language. This can only be at the cost of distorting the  provision
contained in Article 345.  The significance  of  the  word  “or”   occurring
before “Hindi” is to dispense with the requirement of Hindi being “in  use”,
while the requirement of being  “in  use”  for  any  other  language  to  be
declared official language has to be satisfied for exercise of power by  the
State Legislature under Article 345.  Dispensing this requirement for  Hindi
was meant to absorb the adoption of Hindi across  States.   This  cannot  be
taken to mean that the  particular  State  Legislature  must  sacrifice  its
power in promoting other languages within the State.  The purpose  of  using
Hindi separately in Article 345 is to facilitate adoption  of  Hindi  across
the States whether or not Hindi is in use in a particular State.  Any  other
construction to Article 345 would be unduly interfering  with  the  language
compromise adopted by the Constitution.
28.         Part  XVII  of  the  Constitution  as  its  scheme  suggests  is
accommodative.  After all, language policies are constructs and they  change
over time.P
29.         The plain language of  Article  345  which  empowers  the  State
Legislature to make law for adoption of one or more of the languages in  use
in the State leaves no manner of doubt that such power may be  exercised  by
the State Legislature from time to time.  A  different  intention  does  not
appear from the  plain  language  of  Article  345.   We  do  not  find  any
indication that the power can be exercised by the  State  Legislature   only
once and that power gets exhausted if the State Legislature adopts Hindi  as
the official language of the State.  In our view, the State  Legislature  is
at liberty to exercise its discretion under Article 345 from  time  to  time
for specified purpose.  It does not appear to us that Hindi once adopted  as
official  language  of  the  State  in  exercise  of  its  power  by   State
Legislature under Article 345, the State Legislature ceases to have any  law
making  power  under  Article  345.   The  judgment   of   this   Court   in
Nasiruddin[1]  has  no  application  for  the  purpose  of  construction  of
Article 345.
30.         We shall deal with the expression “subject to”  a  little  later
but suffice it to say here that there are many State Legislatures  who  have
adopted other officially recognized language(s) in addition  to  Hindi  such
as Bihar, Haryana, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh  and  Uttarakhand.   Delhi  has
also adopted Punjabi and Urdu as other officially  recognized  languages  in
addition to Hindi.  Obviously, this would not have  been  possible  but  for
the constitutional permissibility.
31.         The  position  that  Hindi  has  been  mentioned  separately  in
Article 345 in the context of the preceding expression  “adopt  any  one  or
more of the languages in use in the State” is to promote  and  spread  Hindi
in terms of Article 351 though it may not be spoken or used  by  the  people
in the State.  Article 345  enables  the  State  Legislature  to  adopt  any
number of languages which are in use in the State for  all  or  any  of  the
official purposes of the State.  It is not  necessary  that  there  must  be
demand made on that behalf to the State Government or if  there  is  demand,
the State Legislature cannot make law adopting a  language  in  use  in  the
State as second official  language.   This  is  one  of  the  distinguishing
features between Articles 345 and 347. If Hindi is in use  in  a  particular
State then it does not foreclose the State’s power or  discretion  to  adopt
any language other  than  Hindi  as  the  official  language  provided  such
language is ‘in use’ in that State.  The use of the word  “may”  in  Article
345 is not without significance.  It indicates that State has discretion  in
adopting the language or languages in use in the State and  so  also  Hindi.
Such  discretion  can  be  exercised  any  number  of  times  by  the  State
Legislature as it deems proper.  The only restriction  to  such  legislative
power is in Article 347 in a given situation which we  shall  explain  after
some more discussion.
32.         Part XVII of the Constitution titled  “official  language”,  Mr.
Shyam Divan, learned senior counsel argues, is a self-contained part of  the
Constitution  akin  to  a  complete  Code.   His  submission  is  that   the
provisions in Part  XVII  constitute  a  complete  scheme  with  respect  to
official language.  We are in agreement with the learned senior  counsel  to
this extent.  He is also right in his submission that Hindi language  has  a
special status and particularly in Part XVII.  In this regard, reference  to
Articles 343(1), 344(2)(a), 345,  346  proviso,  348(2)  and  351  has  been
rightly made.  The above  provisions  in  the  Constitution,  in  our  view,
prescribe larger constitutional charter for Hindi but this  position  in  no
way leads to the conclusion suggested by the learned senior counsel for  the
appellant that where the Legislature of a State by law adopts Hindi  as  the
official language, the State Legislature  is  precluded  from  adopting  any
other official language.  As noted earlier,  nothing  in  Article  345  bars
adopting any other official language in use in the  State,  in  addition  to
Hindi, as the second official language.
33.         It is true that Part XVII specifies the role  of  the  President
(or for that matter, ‘Union Government’)  under  numerous  provisions.   The
President may respond to a demand for an additional official language  where
the requirements of Article 347 are  fulfilled.   Before  directing  that  a
particular language shall also be officially recognized throughout  a  State
or any part of the State for such purpose  as  the  President  may  specify,
the  President  must  be  satisfied  that  “a  substantial  portion  of  the
population of a State desire the use of any language spoken by  them  to  be
recognized by that State”.  Article 350B provides a machinery by  which  the
President may make an  assessment  with  respect  to  demand  of  linguistic
minorities.  However, we are not persuaded to accept  the  argument  of  the
learned senior counsel for the appellant that arrangement in  Part  XVII  of
the Constitution seeks to ensure that the States do  not  yield  to  demands
for multiple official languages sequentially  and  this  power  is  reserved
exclusively with the President (Union Executive).
34.         The expression “subject to the provisions of  Articles  346  and
347” occurring in Article 345 does  not  make  Article  345  subordinate  to
Articles 346 and 347 as  suggested  by  the  learned  senior  counsel.   The
effect of the expression “subject to……..”  is  that  any  law  made  by  the
Legislature of the State is subject to directions existing, if  any,  issued
by the President under Article 347 when the State Legislature exercises  its
power under Article 345.  Once the direction  is  issued  by  the  President
under Article 347, it is not open to the State Legislature  to  tinker  with
such direction in any manner.  In other words, the exercise of power by  the
State Legislature  should  not  be  in  conflict  in  any  manner  with  the
directions that may have been issued by the  President  under  Article  347.
The plenary power of the State under Article 345 is limited to  this  extent
only. Except to the limited extent as noted above, it is not correct to  say
that power of the State Legislature under  Article  345  is  subordinate  or
servient to Article 347.  Part XVII must be read as  a  whole  and,  in  our
view, Articles 345 and 347 should be construed so as to make  it  consistent
with federal structure and so also the other  provisions  of  this  Chapter.

35.         The law making power of the State Legislature under Article  345
is restricted by  virtue  of  the  expression  “subject  to……”  against  the
direction issued by the President under Article  347  occupying  the  field.
Absent such direction, the State Legislature is not prevented in any  manner
in exercising its power under Article 345.
36.         We have, thus, no hesitation in holding that in the  absence  of
direction issued by the President under Article  347  of  the  Constitution,
there is no restriction, restraint or impediment for the  State  Legislature
in adopting one of the  languages  in  use  in  the  State  as  an  official
language under Article 345 of the Constitution of India.
37.         As seen above, Article 345 deals with the  power  of  the  State
Legislature while Article 347 refers to the power of the  President.   These
two provisions prescribe a different procedure for  making  law  or  issuing
directions  for  recognising  a  language   as   official   language.    The
requirement, “a substantial portion of the population of a State desire  the
use of any language spoken by them  to  be  recognized  by  that  State”  in
Article  347  is  not  a  requirement  under  Article  345  for  the   State
Legislature to enact law adopting the language as official language  of  the
State, which is in use in the State.   We do not think that the  requirement
of Article 347 can  be  read  as  a  necessary  requirement  for  the  State
Legislature to exercise its power under Article 345.  We  are  in  agreement
with the view expressed by D.K. Trivedi,  J.  wherein  he  said,  “The  only
limitation imposed on  the  State  Legislature  under  Article  345  of  the
Constitution of India is that the said language must be in use in the  State
and further if any direction has been issued by the President under  Article
347 then the same will have a binding effect……”.
38.         The criterion for adoption of one  or  more  of  the  languages,
other than Hindi, in the State is that those languages must be “in  the  use
in State”.   This  criterion  must  be  satisfied  at  the  time  the  State
Legislature exercises its power under Article 345.   The  State  Legislature
cannot adopt any language as official language if such language is not  used
in the State.   However, there is no impediment for  the  State  Legislature
to declare Hindi to be an official language even if Hindi is  not  “in  use”
in Karnataka.  The  reason  for  this  is  to  be  found  in  constitutional
compromise on the linguistic issue and  the  larger  constitutional  charter
for Hindi to facilitate the spread of Hindi across India.
39.         Learned senior counsel for the appellant argues that Chapter  II
of Part XVII engrafts a unique dichotomy involving the State Legislature  at
the State level and the Union  Executive  (the  President)  at  the  Central
level.  It provides two routes for designating a  language  as  an  official
language in a State; (a) the adoption by  law  by  the  Legislature  of  the
State; and (b) a direction by the President of  India.    These  two  routes
are complementary.  Learned senior counsel is right in his  submission  that
the  Constitution  of  India  provides  two  routes  as  noted   above   for
designating a language as an official language in  a  State.   However,  the
inference drawn by him that  where  the  State  Legislature  has  adopted  a
language as the official language, and there is a demand for recognition  of
another  language  which  is  used  by  a  substantial  proportion  of   the
population of a  State,  the  Constitution  provides  only  one  method  for
designating another language as the official language, which  is  through  a
Presidential direction under Article 347, is not entirely correct.   Insofar
as Article 347 is concerned, the learned senior counsel  is  right  that  if
there is a demand for recognition of another language which  is  used  by  a
substantial proportion of the population of a  State,  this  could  be  done
through Presidential direction under Article 347.  However, he is not  right
that this is the  only  method  for  designating  another  language  as  the
official language.  If the construction of the  learned  senior  counsel  is
accepted, it would restrict and limit the power of the State Legislature  in
adopting one or more languages in use in the  State  as  official  language.
The curtailment of the State  Legislature’s  power  under  Article  345,  as
suggested by the learned senior counsel is  neither  constitutionally  sound
nor does it flow from the scheme of Part XVII of the Constitution  generally
and the scheme engrafted under  Articles  345  and  347.   We  do  not  find
ourselves in agreement with the learned  senior  counsel  that  a  situation
where there is a demand for another official language, Article  347  is  the
only manner known in the Constitution to respond to such a demand.   In  our
view, this is misunderstanding of Articles 345 and 347.
40.         In what we have stated above, we are unable to  agree  with  the
learned senior counsel  for  the  appellant  that  since  the  Statement  of
Objects  and  Reasons  accompanying  the  Uttar  Pradesh  Official  Language
(Amendment) Bill, 1989 expressly records  “demand  for  the  declaration  of
Urdu as the second language of the State was made from time to  time”,   the
impugned  law  covers  the  situation  contemplated  in  Article  347   and,
therefore, invoking the legislative power by  the  State  Legislature  under
Article 345 is constitutionally bad.
41.         A bare  text  of  Article  350  will  show  that  it  confers  a
constitutional right on every person to submit a representation for  redress
of any grievance to any office of the Union or  the  State  in  any  of  the
language used in the Union or the State.  Learned  senior  counsel  for  the
appellant does not dispute the position that the State Executive  may  adopt
different languages for the convenience of the citizenry.   Obviously,  then
the State Legislature shall be within its constitutional power  with  regard
to field covered by Article 345 to  legislate  by  adopting  a  language  or
languages in use in the  State  subsequent  to  the  adoption  of  Hindi  as
official language and so also adoption  of  more  official  languages.   The
exercise of legislative power by the State cannot be said  to  impinge  upon
the power given to the President under Article  347  unless  a  Presidential
directive is occupying the field.
42.          Article  367  of  the  Constitution  is   an   interpretational
provision.  Clause (1) of Article 367 reads:
367.  Interpretation—(1) Unless the context otherwise requires, the  General
Clauses Act, 1897, shall, subject to any adaptations and modifications  that
may be made therein under Article 372, apply for the interpretation of  this
Constitution as  it  applies  for  the  interpretation  of  an  Act  of  the
Legislature of the Dominion of India.

(2)         xxx              xxx             xxx

(3)         xxx              xxx             xxx

43.         By virtue of  the  above  provision  in  the  Constitution,  the
provision of Section 14€ of the General Clauses Act,  1897  applies  to  the
interpretation of the Constitution and that leaves no manner of  doubt  that
the State Legislature may exercise its power under Article 345 from time  to
time.  We do not find any merit  in  the  argument  of  the  learned  senior
counsel for the appellant that Section 14 of the General Clauses Act has  no
application in the present case since a different intention appears  in  the
constitutional  scheme  of  Part  XVII.   We  have  already  explained   the
constitutional scheme of Part XVII and so also ambit and scope  of  Articles
345 and 347.  For the reasons we have indicated above, we do  not  find  any
merit in the argument of the learned senior counsel for the  appellant  that
the power of the State Legislature under Article 345 gets exhausted    after
a single use.  The argument is constitutionally flawed  and  does  not  flow
from Articles 345 and  347.   In  our  view,  it  will  be  unreasonable  to
construe Article 345 in the manner suggested by the learned  senior  counsel
for the appellant.  It is said that law and language  are  both  organic  in
their mode of  development.   In  India,  these  are  evolving  through  the
process of accepting legitimate aspirations of  the  speakers  of  different
languages.  Indian language laws are  not  rigid  but  accommodative  –  the
object being to secure linguistic secularism.
44.         We hold, as we must, that neither insertion of Section 3 in  the
1989 Amendment Act nor the impugned notification in pursuance of  the  above
provision notifying Urdu as  the  second  language  for  seven  purposes  is
unconstitutional.
45.         There is no merit in the appeal and  it  is  dismissed  with  no
order as to costs.


      ….………..……………………CJI.
(R.M. Lodha)


       …….………..……………………J.
(Dipak Misra)


             …….………..……………………J.                (Madan B. Lokur)


       …….………..……………………J.
(Kurian Joseph)


NEW DELHI;                          …….………..……………………J.
SEPTEMBER 4, 2014.     (S.A. Bobde)

                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                        CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2513 OF 2006


Uttar Pradesh Urdu Development Organisation           … Appellant

                                   Versus

State Election Commissioner and Ors.                 … Respondents


                                    ORDER


            In light of the judgment passed  today  in  U.P.  Hindi  Sahitya
Sammelan v. State of U.P. [Civil Appeal No. 459 of 1997], the  appeal  shall
now be posted before the regular Bench.

      ….………..……………………CJI.
(R.M. Lodha)


       …….………..……………………J.
(Dipak Misra)


             …….………..……………………J.                    (Madan B. Lokur)


       …….………..……………………J.
(Kurian Joseph)


NEW DELHI;                          …….………..……………………J.
SEPTEMBER 4, 2014.     (S.A. Bobde)
-----------------------
?
        Part XVII
      343. Official language of the Union.- (1)  The  official  language  of
the Union shall be Hindi in Devanagari script.
      The form of numerals to be used  for  the  official  purposes  of  the
Union   shall   be   the   international   form    of    Indian    numerals.
                             
      (2) Notwithstanding anything in clause (1), for a  period  of  fifteen
years from the commencement  of  this  Constitution,  the  English  language
shall continue to be used for all the official purposes  of  the  Union  for
which it was being used immediately before such commencement:
      Provided that the President may, during  the  said  period,  by  order
authorise the use of the Hindi language in addition to the English  language
and of the Devanagari form of numerals  in  addition  to  the  international
form of Indian numerals for any of  the  official  purposes  of  the  Union.

      (3) Notwithstanding anything in this article, Parliament  may  by  law
provide for  the  use,  after  the  said  period  of  fifteen  years,  of  -

       (a) the English language, or
      (b) the Devanagari form of numerals,
      for such purposes as may be specified in the law.

      344. Commission and Committee of  Parliament  on  official  language.-

      (1) The President shall, at the expiration  of  five  years  from  the
commencement of this Constitution and thereafter at the  expiration  of  ten
years from such commencement, by order constitute a Commission  which  shall
consist of a Chairman and such  other  members  representing  the  different
languages specified in the Eighth Schedule as  the  President  may  appoint,
and the order shall define the procedure to be followed by the Commission.
      (2) It shall be the duty of the Commission to make recommendations  to
the President as to-
      (a) the progressive  use  of  the  Hindi  language  for  the  official
purposes of the Union;
      (b) restrictions on the use of the English language for all or any  of
the official purposes of the Union;
      (c) the language to be used for all or any of the  purposes  mentioned
in article 348;
      (d) the form of numerals to be used for  any  one  or  more  specified
purposes of the Union;
      (e) any other matter referred to the Commission by  the  President  as
regards  the  official  language  of  the  Union  and   the   language   for
communication between the Union  and  a  State  or  between  one  State  and
another and their use.
      (3) In making their recommendations under clause (2),  the  Commission
shall  have  due  regard  to  the  industrial,   cultural   and   scientific
advancement of India, and the just  claims  and  the  interests  of  persons
belonging to the non-Hindi speaking areas in regard to the public services.
      (4) There shall  be  constituted  a  Committee  consisting  of  thirty
members, of whom twenty shall be members of the House of the People and  ten
shall be members of the Council of States to be elected respectively by  the
members of the House of the People and the members of the Council of  States
in accordance with the system of proportional  representation  by  means  of
the single transferable vote.
       (5)  It  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  Committee  to   examine   the
recommendations of the  Commission  constituted  under  clause  (1)  and  to
report to the President their opinion thereon.
      (6) 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.

      345. Official language or  languages  of  a  State.-  Subject  to  the
provisions of articles 346 and 347, the Legislature of a State  may  by  law
adopt any one or more of the languages in use in the State or Hindi  as  the
language or languages to be used for all or any of the official purposes  of
that State:
      Provided that, until the Legislature of the State  otherwise  provides
by law, the English language shall continue to be used  for  those  official
purposes within the State for which it was  being  used  immediately  before
the commencement of this Constitution.

      346.  Official  language  for  communication  between  one  State  and
another or between a State and the Union.- The language for the  time  being
authorised for use in the Union for official purposes shall be the  official
language for communication between one State and another State  and  between
a State and the Union:
      Provided that if two or more States  agree  that  the  Hindi  language
should be the official language for communication between such States,  that
language may be used for such communication.
     
      347. Special provision relating to language spoken  by  a  section  of
the population of a State.-
      On a demand being made in that behalf the  President  may,  if  he  is
satisfied that a substantial proportion of the population of a State  desire
the use of any language spoken by them  to  be  recognised  by  that  State,
direct that such language shall also  be  officially  recognised  throughout
that State or any part thereof for such purpose as he may specify.
     
      348. Language to be used in the Supreme Court and in the  High  Courts
and for Acts, Bills, etc.-
      (1) Notwithstanding anything  in  the  foregoing  provisions  of  this
Part, until Parliament by law otherwise provides-
      (a) all proceedings in the Supreme Court and in every High Court,
      (b) the authoritative texts-
      (i) of all Bills to be introduced or amendments thereto  to  be  moved
in either House of Parliament or  in  the  House  or  either  House  of  the
Legislature of a State,
      (ii) of all Acts passed by Parliament or the Legislature  of  a  State
and of all Ordinances promulgated by the President or  the  Governor   of  a
State, and
      (iii) of all orders, rules,  regulations  and  bye-laws  issued  under
this Constitution or under any law made by Parliament or the Legislature  of
a State, shall be in the English language.
      (2) Notwithstanding anything in sub-clause  (a)  of  clause  (1),  the
Governor of a State  may,  with  the  previous  consent  of  the  President,
authorise the use of the Hindi language, or any other language used for  any
official purposes of the State, in proceedings in the High Court having  its
principal seat in that State:
      Provided that nothing in this clause  shall  apply  to  any  judgment,
decree or order passed or made by such High Court.
      (3) Notwithstanding anything in sub-clause (b) of  clause  (1),  where
the Legislature of a State  has  prescribed  any  language  other  than  the
English language for use in Bills introduced in,  or  Acts  passed  by,  the
Legislature of the State or in Ordinances  promulgated  by  the  Governor of
the State or in any order,  rule,  regulation  or  bye-law  referred  to  in
paragraph (iii) of that  sub-clause,  a  translation  of  the  same  in  the
English language published under the authority of the Governor of the  State
in  the  Official  Gazette  of  that  State  shall  be  deemed  to  be   the
authoritative text thereof in the English language under this article.

      349. Special procedure for  enactment  of  certain  laws  relating  to
language.- During the period of fifteen years from the commencement of  this
Constitution, no Bill or amendment making provision for the language  to  be
used for any of the purposes mentioned in clause (1) of  article  348  shall
be introduced or moved in either House of Parliament  without  the  previous
sanction of the President, and the President shall not give his sanction  to
the introduction of any such Bill  or  the  moving  of  any  such  amendment
except after he has taken into  consideration  the  recommendations  of  the
Commission constituted under clause (1) of article 344  and  the  report  of
the Committee constituted under clause (4) of that article.

       350.  Language  to  be  used  in  representations  for   redress   of
grievances.- Every person shall be entitled to submit a  representation  for
the redress of any grievance to any officer or authority of the Union  or  a
State in any of the languages used in the Union or  in  the  State,  as  the
case may be.
      350A. Facilities for instruction in mother-tongue at  primary  stage.-
It shall be the endeavour of  every  State  and  of  every  local  authority
within the State to provide  adequate  facilities  for  instruction  in  the
mother-tongue at the primary stage of education  to  children  belonging  to
linguistic minority groups; and the President may issue such  directions  to
any State as he considers necessary or proper for securing the provision  of
such facilities.
      350B. Special Officer for linguistic minorities.-
      (1) There shall be a Special Officer for linguistic minorities  to  be
appointed by the President.
      (2) It shall be the duty of the Special  Officer  to  investigate  all
matters relating to the safeguards provided for linguistic minorities  under
this Constitution and report to the President upon  those  matters  at  such
intervals as the President may direct, and the  President  shall  cause  all
such reports to be laid before each House of Parliament,  and  sent  to  the
Governments of the States concerned.

      351. Directive for development of the Hindi  language.  -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  a  medium  of  expression  for  all  the
elements of the composite culture of India and to secure its  enrichment  by
assimilating without interfering with  its  genius,  the  forms,  style  and
expressions  used  in  Hindustani  and  in  the  other  languages  of  India
specified in the Eighth Schedule, and  by  drawing,  wherever  necessary  or
desirable, for its vocabulary, primarily  on  Sanskrit  and  secondarily  on
other languages.

¥      23.2 The provisions of our Constitution  relating  to  language  have
raised no serious questions of legal interpretation, but  they  have  raised
serious political problems.  It  is  outside  the  scope  of  this  work  to
describe in detail the various phases  of  the  controversy  about  language
which resulted in the enactment of Part XVII of our Constitution. Nor is  it
necessary to do so, for a well documented and vivid account  of  the  forces
at play has been given by Austin in his chapter entitled "Language  and  the
Constitution — the Half-hearted Compromise". The chapter repays  study,  but
its effect may be stated  thus:  in  his  struggle  for  political  freedom,
Mahatma Gandhi raised the question of a national language. He  described  it
at times as Hindi, and at times as Hindustani, but he understood by  both  a
language which was neither Sanskritised Hindi nor Persianised  Urdu,  but  a
happy blend of both,  written  either  in  the  Devanagari  or  the  Persian
script. However the question of language  did  not  receive  much  attention
till  it  was  forced  upon  the  Constituent  Assembly.  On  political  and
psychological grounds there was a general demand for  a  national  language.
But difficulties became apparent when that demand had to be translated  into
constitutional provisions. The need for unity among the  Indian  people  was
undisputed, and English had supplied that basic unity by uniting the  people
of the North, whose language was derived from Sanskrit or Persian,  and  the
people of the South speaking Dravidian languages which were not so  derived.
Again,  administration  at  the  higher  levels,   higher   education,   the
legislature, the law courts, and the professions, all used English, and  the
question was which language should take the place of English and when?  Till
the partition of India, Hindustani in both the Devanagari  and  the  Persian
script held the field. With the partition of India the cause  of  Hindustani
was lost, though Mahatma Gandhi  held  that  the  Indian  National  Congress
ought to stand for a broad outlook and  should  stand  firm  on  a  language
which was spoken by the largest group of people. Though Hindi  was  selected
as the official  language,  it  could  not  be  described  as  the  national
language, for, it was not the language generally  spoken  in  all  parts  of
India, and though spoken by the largest single group of people,  that  group
did not constitute the majority of people  in  India.  Besides,  there  were
regional languages such as Bengali in Bengal, Tamil in Madras,  Marathi  and
Gujarati in the erstwhile  State  of  Bombay  which  were  spoken  by  large
populations and it was claimed for  those  languages  that  they  were  more
developed  than  Hindi.  Hindi  was  therefore  described  as  the  official
language. In the  Constituent  Assembly,  the  protagonists  of  Hindi  were
prepared to abandon the  basis  of  consensus  on  which  the  Assembly  had
functioned; but their extreme methods provoked a reaction and some  who  had
supported them earlier withdrew their support. The leaders of  the  Congress
party, who formed the government of  the  day,  counselled  moderation,  for
they were brought in close contact with the difficulties involved in  making
the transition from English to an Indian language. It appeared at one  stage
that the unity which had existed in the  Constituent  Assembly  would  break
down on the provisions relating to language. But.  at  the  last  moment,  a
compromise formula called the "Munshi-Ayyangar formula" was evolved and  was
accepted without dissent. It was a half-hearted compromise, for it  gave  to
neither party what it wanted. Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru told  the  Constituent
Assembly, that he would not have accepted Hindi as.  the  official  language
if  express  provision  had  not  been  made  that  Hindi  did  not  exclude
Hindustani, that it was not to be the language  of  a  learned  coterie  and
that Hindi was to be based on the composite culture  of  India  assimilating
words from all languages. A period of 15 years  was  provided  during  which
English was to continue but this was a flexible limit, for Parliament  could
extend  it.  The  battle  over  numerals  was  settled  in  favour  of  "the
international form of Indian numerals" — a euphemism  for  Arabic  numerals,
with a proviso that after 15 years Parliament might by law provide  for  the
use of the  Devanagari  form  of  numerals  for  such  purposes  as  may  be
specified.



8      (Reference is made to Granville Austin, the Indian Constitution –
Cornerstone of a Nation, Ninth Impression, 2005, Pg. 266)
*      (3rd Edition, 2010 at pp. 1113-1114)
P      (Schiffman, Harold. “Language policy and linguistic culture”. An
introduction to language policy: Theory and method (2006) : 111-125)
[1]    Sri Nasiruddin v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal; [(1975) 2 SCC
671]
€      14. Powers conferred to be exercisable from time to time.—(1) Where,
by any Central Act or Regulation made after the commencement of this Act,
any power is conferred then unless a different intention appears that power
may be exercised from time to time as occasion requires.
      (2)  This section applies also to all  Central  Acts  and  Regulations
made on or after the fourteenth day of January, 1887.

-----------------------
27


No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.