ADVOCATEMMMOHAN: Language rights — Rajasthani language — Exclusion ...

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN: Language rights — Rajasthani language — Exclusion ...: advocatemmmohan Constitution of India — Articles 19(1)(a), 21, 21A, 41, 45, 51A(k), 350A & Part XVII — Right to education in mother tong...

apex court held that 

Constitution of India — Articles 19(1)(a), 21, 21A, 41, 45, 51A(k), 350A & Part XVII — Right to education in mother tongue/regional language — Constitutional significance of language — State obligation.

The Supreme Court held that language is not merely a means of communication but forms the essence of identity, comprehension and meaningful participation in society. The constitutional framework, particularly Articles 19(1)(a), 21A and 350A read with the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 and National Education Policy, 2020, recognises the importance of imparting education in the child’s mother tongue or regional language. The Court held that meaningful education necessarily requires instruction in a language intelligible to the child.
— Paras 3, 12 to 19, 34, 35 & 39 to 42.

---

Constitution of India — Article 19(1)(a) — Freedom of speech and expression — Includes right to receive education in comprehensible language — Mother tongue instruction.

The Court reiterated that the right under Article 19(1)(a) includes not only the right to impart information but also the right to receive information in a meaningful and comprehensible manner. Education imparted in the mother tongue or language of choice enhances conceptual clarity and cognitive development. The Court affirmed that instruction in an unfamiliar language defeats meaningful access to education.
— Paras 21, 35, 42 & 43.

---

Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 — Section 29(2)(f) — Medium of instruction — Mother tongue — Legislative mandate.

Section 29(2)(f) of the RTE Act, 2009 mandates that curriculum and evaluation procedures shall take into consideration that the medium of instruction should, as far as practicable, be in the child’s mother tongue. The Court held that this provision embodies the legislative intent to secure meaningful, inclusive and quality education through intelligible instruction.
— Paras 17, 37 & 39.

---

National Education Policy, 2020 — Mother tongue-based education — Executive policy reinforcing constitutional mandate.

The Supreme Court held that NEP, 2020 strongly reinforces the constitutional and statutory vision favouring mother tongue or regional language instruction, especially at foundational stages. The Policy recognises that children grasp concepts more effectively in their home language and recommends instruction in such language at least up to Grade V and preferably beyond.
— Paras 18, 19 & 40.

---

Language rights — Rajasthani language — Exclusion from educational curriculum — State’s inaction deprecated.

The Court deprecated the stand of the State of Rajasthan that only languages included in the Eighth Schedule to the Constitution could be taught in Government schools. The Court held that such a stand was pedantic and constitutionally unsustainable, particularly when Rajasthani language was already being taught in Universities across the State.
— Paras 46 & 50.

---

Judicial review — Executive inaction — Constitutional duty of Court — Direction to frame policy.

The Court held that constitutional guarantees relating to meaningful and inclusive education cannot remain dormant for want of executive action. Though policy formulation ordinarily falls within executive domain, Courts cannot remain silent spectators where recognised constitutional rights are rendered illusory by State inaction. Accordingly, directions were issued to the State of Rajasthan to formulate a comprehensive policy for implementation of mother tongue-based education and to progressively introduce Rajasthani language in schools.
— Paras 47 to 51.

Election Law — Handbook issued by Election Commission — Nature of instructions — Whether mandatory or directory — Handbook vis-à-vis statutory Rules. The returned candidate contended that the Handbook for Returning Officers is merely a guiding document and cannot override the Representation of the People Act, 1951 or Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961. Reliance was placed on paragraph 1.2.1 of the Handbook stating that it is not a substitute for statutory provisions. The Court examined whether instructions contained in the Handbook regarding mandatory re-verification of postal ballots possess binding force. — Paras discussing Handbook and statutory scheme.

 Karnataka high court held that  ( apex court stayed it now)

Representation of the People Act, 1951 — Sections 81, 83 & 100 — Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961 — Rules 54A & 63 — Election Petition — Recount of postal ballots — Mandatory re-verification — Victory margin less than rejected postal ballots — Effect.

Where the margin of victory was only 201 votes while 279 postal ballots were rejected, the petitioner contended that the Returning Officer was mandatorily required to re-verify all postal ballots before declaration of result. The Court considered the allegation that failure to conduct re-verification materially affected the election result and examined whether non-compliance with Election Commission guidelines and Rules regarding postal ballots justified recount or setting aside the election.
— Paras relating to Issues Nos.1, 2, 3 & 15.

---

Election Law — Handbook issued by Election Commission — Nature of instructions — Whether mandatory or directory — Handbook vis-à-vis statutory Rules.

The returned candidate contended that the Handbook for Returning Officers is merely a guiding document and cannot override the Representation of the People Act, 1951 or Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961. Reliance was placed on paragraph 1.2.1 of the Handbook stating that it is not a substitute for statutory provisions. The Court examined whether instructions contained in the Handbook regarding mandatory re-verification of postal ballots possess binding force.
— Paras discussing Handbook and statutory scheme.

---

Postal Ballots — Rejection of ballots — Requirement of recording reasons — Failure to maintain proper records — Effect on sanctity of counting process.

The petitioner alleged that 279 postal ballots were rejected without recording reasons as required under Rule 54A of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961. Evidence of the Returning Officer disclosed that reasons for rejection were not recorded in writing and no endorsement was made on rejected postal ballots. The Court examined whether such lapses vitiated the counting process.
— Relevant discussion in evidence of PW.2.

---

Election Petition — Recount of votes — Conditions for grant — Fishing and roving inquiry impermissible.

The returned candidate contended that the application seeking recount was vague and based merely on “doubt” regarding postal ballots without specifying any illegality or irregularity. It was argued that recount cannot be ordered for conducting a fishing or roving enquiry in absence of material particulars.
— Paras discussing objections of respondent No.1.

---

Corrupt Practice — Pleadings — Requirement of material facts and particulars — Vague allegations insufficient.

Allegations relating to bribery, paid news, excess expenditure, hate propaganda, duplicate voting and use of black money were held required to be pleaded with full particulars including names, dates, places and supporting affidavit in Form 25 under Rule 94A. General, vague and omnibus allegations without material particulars do not constitute valid pleadings of corrupt practice under Section 83 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
— Paras discussing Issues Nos.5 to 12.

---

Election Law — False affidavit regarding assets and liabilities — Suppression of material financial information — Effect on election.

The petitioner alleged that the returned candidate suppressed material particulars relating to financial dealings and acquisition of estate properties through partnership firms while filing affidavit under Rule 4A of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961. It was contended that non-disclosure of substantial assets and financial transactions amounts to corrupt practice and materially affects the electoral choice of voters.
— Paras discussing Exs.P9 to P27.

Advocates Act, 1961 — Sections 35, 36, 37 & 38 — Constitution of India — Articles 129 & 142 — Contempt jurisdiction of Supreme Court — Whether Supreme Court can suspend licence of advocate while punishing for contempt — Held, No — Exclusive jurisdiction vests in Bar Councils under Advocates Act. The Constitution Bench held that though the Supreme Court, being a Court of Record under Article 129, possesses inherent power to punish for contempt of itself, such power does not extend to suspending or debarring an advocate from practice. Suspension or removal from practice is a statutory punishment specifically provided under the Advocates Act, 1961 and can be imposed only by the disciplinary authorities constituted under the Act after following the prescribed procedure. The Supreme Court cannot, while exercising contempt jurisdiction under Articles 129 and 142, assume disciplinary jurisdiction vested exclusively in Bar Councils. — Paras relating to discussion on Articles 129 & 142 and Advocates Act.

 apex court held that 

Advocates Act, 1961 — Sections 35, 36, 37 & 38 — Constitution of India — Articles 129 & 142 — Contempt jurisdiction of Supreme Court — Whether Supreme Court can suspend licence of advocate while punishing for contempt — Held, No — Exclusive jurisdiction vests in Bar Councils under Advocates Act.

The Constitution Bench held that though the Supreme Court, being a Court of Record under Article 129, possesses inherent power to punish for contempt of itself, such power does not extend to suspending or debarring an advocate from practice. Suspension or removal from practice is a statutory punishment specifically provided under the Advocates Act, 1961 and can be imposed only by the disciplinary authorities constituted under the Act after following the prescribed procedure. The Supreme Court cannot, while exercising contempt jurisdiction under Articles 129 and 142, assume disciplinary jurisdiction vested exclusively in Bar Councils.
— Paras relating to discussion on Articles 129 & 142 and Advocates Act.

---

Constitution of India — Article 142 — Scope and limitations — Power to do complete justice — Cannot override substantive statutory provisions — Article 142 supplementary and curative, not destructive of statutory scheme.

The Court held that powers under Article 142 are supplementary and intended to do complete justice in causes or matters pending before the Court. Such powers cannot be exercised to supplant substantive law or to create a jurisdiction contrary to statute. The Court clarified that Article 142 cannot be used to suspend an advocate’s licence when the Advocates Act expressly vests such power in Bar Councils.
— Discussion on Prem Chand Garg, A.R. Antulay, Union Carbide and related cases.

---

Contempt of Court — Nature and object — Jurisdiction sui generis — Intended to protect administration of justice and majesty of law — Not adversarial litigation.

The Court reiterated that contempt jurisdiction is a special jurisdiction exercised to uphold the majesty of law, maintain public confidence in judicial institutions, and prevent obstruction to administration of justice. Contempt proceedings are matters between the Court and contemner and not strictly adversarial proceedings between litigating parties.
— Relevant discussion on contempt jurisdiction.

---

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 — Punishments recognised — Fine, imprisonment, detention in civil prison — No new punishment can be created by Court.

The Constitution Bench held that the recognised punishments for contempt under common law and statutory law are imprisonment, fine, sequestration, or detention in civil prison. Suspension of professional licence is not a recognised punishment for contempt either under common law or under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Courts cannot create a new category of punishment while exercising contempt jurisdiction.
— Discussion on Sections 10 & 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act.

---

Advocates — Professional misconduct — Jurisdiction of Bar Council and contempt jurisdiction of Court are distinct and independent.

The Court held that though an act constituting contempt may also amount to professional misconduct, both jurisdictions operate independently. Punishment for professional misconduct can be imposed only after inquiry by the competent disciplinary committee under the Advocates Act and Rules framed thereunder.
— Relevant discussion on separate jurisdictions.

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN: Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order XII Rule 6 — Ju...

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN: Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order XII Rule 6 — Ju...: advocatemmmohan Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order XII Rule 6 — Judgment on admissions — Admission “otherwise” than pleadings — Admissions m...

apex court held that

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order XII Rule 6 — Judgment on admissions — Admission “otherwise” than pleadings — Admissions made in criminal proceedings/FIR/complaint can be relied upon by Civil Court — Decree for possession against caretaker/licensee — Concurrent findings by three Courts — Scope of interference under Article 136 — Special Leave Petition dismissed.

Where the defendant, in a complaint lodged by him before police and in criminal proceedings arising therefrom, categorically admitted that the suit property belonged to the plaintiffs and that he was inducted merely as a caretaker/chowkidar, such admissions constituted clear and unequivocal admissions within the meaning of Order XII Rule 6 CPC. The Trial Court was justified in partly decreeing the suit for possession on the basis of such admissions without waiting for full trial. The Supreme Court held that admissions under Order XII Rule 6 CPC need not be confined to pleadings and may be oral or written and made “otherwise” also. Concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Trial Court, First Appellate Court and High Court did not warrant interference under Article 136 of the Constitution.
— Paras 12 to 18.

---

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order XII Rule 6 — Nature and scope — Admission may be oral or written — No particular form necessary — Object of provision explained — Speedy judgment on admitted claims.

The Supreme Court reiterated that Order XII Rule 6 CPC empowers the Court to pass judgment on admissions made either in pleadings or otherwise, whether oral or written. No particular form of admission is necessary. The object of the provision is to enable a party to obtain speedy justice to the extent of the admitted claim. The Court referred to Uttam Singh Duggal & Co. Ltd. v. United Bank of India, (2000) 7 SCC 120, and held that the Rule should not be narrowly construed.
— Paras 13 to 16.

---

Evidence — Admission — FIR/Police complaint — Mere statement that contents were not read over by police — Does not amount to denial of contents — Appreciation of evidence.

The High Court rightly distinguished between a statement that papers were not read over by police and a categorical denial of contents of the complaint/FIR. In absence of any denial of ownership of plaintiffs or denial of defendant’s status as caretaker either in examination-in-chief or cross-examination, the Courts below rightly relied upon the admissions contained in the complaint and FIR.
— Paras 26 to 31.

---

Licence/Caretaker possession — Termination of licence — No right to continue in possession — Decree for vacant possession justified.

Once ownership of the plaintiffs and status of defendant as caretaker/licensee stood admitted, continuation of possession after termination of licence was unjustified. A caretaker or chowkidar has no independent right, title or interest in the property and cannot indefinitely continue in possession.
— Paras 5, 32 and 33.

CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 — O.21 Rr.26, 29 & 58 — Execution proceedings — Auction sale — Claim petition by coparceners seeking stay of further execution proceedings — Return of unnumbered application by Executing Court on maintainability objections — Revision under Art.227 — Maintainability — Held, when claim application was only returned with objections and time granted for resubmission, proper course for claimants was to cure defects and resubmit application — However, considering urgency arising from proposed confirmation of auction sale and delivery of possession, High Court justified in issuing protective directions pending consideration of claim petition.

 AP HIGH COURT HELD THAT 

CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 — O.21 Rr.26, 29 & 58 — Execution proceedings — Auction sale — Claim petition by coparceners seeking stay of further execution proceedings — Return of unnumbered application by Executing Court on maintainability objections — Revision under Art.227 — Maintainability — Held, when claim application was only returned with objections and time granted for resubmission, proper course for claimants was to cure defects and resubmit application — However, considering urgency arising from proposed confirmation of auction sale and delivery of possession, High Court justified in issuing protective directions pending consideration of claim petition.

(Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, O.21 Rr.26, 29 & 58 — Constitution of India, Art.227)

Execution proceedings — Partition suit by coparceners — Subject property in execution also forming subject matter of subsequent partition suit — Protective jurisdiction of High Court — Direction issued restraining confirmation of sale and delivery of possession pending adjudication of claim petition.

Facts :
Petitioners, claiming to be coparceners of judgment-debtor family, instituted partition suit in O.S.No.30 of 2022 in respect of property which was also subject matter of E.P.No.10 of 2015 arising out of O.S.No.22 of 2010. Upon coming to know of execution proceedings and auction sale, petitioners filed unnumbered claim applications under Order XXI Rules 26 and 29 read with Section 151 CPC seeking stay of further execution proceedings. Executing Court returned applications by docket order dated 29.04.2026 raising objections relating to maintainability, correctness of cause title and impleadment of parties, while granting seven days’ time for resubmission. Without resubmitting applications, petitioners approached High Court under Article 227 on ground of urgency as auction sale conducted on 02.03.2026 was posted for confirmation. Paras 2 and 3.

Held :
Since claim applications were merely returned with objections and time was granted for compliance, petitioners were entitled to resubmit applications after curing defects and same were required to be considered by Court below on merits. Paras 3 and 4.

Considering urgency expressed and pendency of proposed confirmation of auction sale, High Court directed petitioners to resubmit applications by complying with objections and further directed Executing Court to receive and decide same expeditiously after hearing both parties. Para 4.

Till disposal of claim petition, Executing Court was directed not to proceed with delivery of possession or confirmation of auction sale. Court below was further directed to dispose of claim petition within three months, failing which it would be at liberty to proceed further with execution proceedings in accordance with law. Para 4.