Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5
PETITIONER:
HINDI HITRAKSHAK SAMITI AND ORS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT26/02/1990
BENCH:
MUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (CJ)
BENCH:
MUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (CJ)
SAIKIA, K.N. (J)
PUNCHHI, M.M.
CITATION:
1990 AIR 851 1990 SCR (1) 588
1990 SCC (2) 352 JT 1990 (1) 359
1990 SCALE (1)433
ACT:
Constitution of India, 1950: Articles 29(2) and
32--Non-holding of pre-medical and pre-dental examinations
in Hindi or other regional languages--Whether amounts to
denial of admission on grounds of language--Whether viola-
tive of Fundamental Rights--Writ for direction to conduct
examination in particular language--Whether appropriate
remedy.
HEADNOTE:
A Writ Petition was filed in this Court praying for a
direction to.the respondents to hold pre-medical and pre-
dental examination in Hindi and other regional languages.
It was contended that pre-medical studies in medical and
dental examination should be permitted in Hindi and other
regional languages and not in English alone, that admission
should not be refused and/or examinations should not be held
in English alone if the examinees or the entrants sought to
appear in Hindi or other regional languages, and that by not
holding the examinations in Hindi or other regional lan-
guages, there was a breach of Article 29(2).
Dismissing the writ petition as withdrawn, the Court,
HELD: 1.1 The jurisdiction conferred on the Supreme
Court under Article 32 is an important and integral part of
the Indian Constitution but violation of a fundamental right
is the sine qua non for seeking enforcement of those rights
by the Supreme Court. [591D-E]
1.2 Not holding entrance examination in any particular
language, be it Hindi or regional language cannot amount to
denial of admission on the ground of language. Every educa-
tional institution has right to determine or set out its
method of education and conditions of examination and stud-
ies provided these do not directly or indirectly have any
casual connection with violation of the fundamental rights
guaranteed by the Constitution. It may be that Hindi or
other regional languages are more appropriate medium of
imparting education to very many and
589
it may be appropriate and proper to hold the examinations,
entrance or otherwise, in any particular regional or Hindi
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5
Language, or it may be that Hindi or other regional language
because of development of the language, is not yet appropri-
ate medium to transmute or test the knowledge or capacity
that could be had in medical and dental disciplines. It is a
matter of formulation of policy by the State or educational
authorities in-charge of any particular situation. [591 E, G
JUDGMENT:
1.3 Where the existence of a fundamental right has to be
established by acceptance of a particular policy or a course
of action for which there is no legal compulsion or statuto-
ry imperative, and on which there are divergent views, the
same cannot be sought to be enforced by Article 32 of the
Constitution. Article 32 of the Constitution cannot be a
means to indicate policy preference. [592B-C]
1.4 The actions following from non-acceptance of any
policy perspective cannot amount to direct and casual viola-
tion of the fundamental right of the citizens guaranteed
under the Constitution of India. Court is not the forum to
adjudicate upon the questions of policy unless such a policy
is the direct mandate of the COnstitution. [592D]
1.5 Whether in particular facts and circumstances of the
instant case, admission to medical or dental Institution by
conducting examination in Hindi or other regional languages
would be appropriate or desirable or not, is a matter on
which debate is possible and the acceptance of one view over
the other involves a policy decision. It cannot be appropri-
ately dealt with by this Court, and order under Article 32
of the Constitution in those circumstances would not be an
appropriate remedy. [592H, 593A]
&
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No.
428 of 1989.
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India).
Dr. L.M. Singhvi, N. Wazir and D. Bhandari for the Petition-
ers.
Rajiv Dutta for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, CJ. This is an application under
Article 32 of the Constitution of India for issue of a writ
of mandamus
590
directing the Central Government to hold-pre-medical and
pre-dental entrance examinations in Hindi and other regional
languages as, according to the petitioners, mandated by
Article 29(2) of the Constitution of India. The petition is
by nine petitioners. Petitioner No. 1 is Hindi Hitrakshak
Samiti which is stated to be a society formed with the aim
and object of propagating and ensuring the propagation of
the national language Hindi and other regional languages;
and to further the cause of the citizens of India who are
educated in any one or more of the languages and who face
difficulty in competitive examinations in which the medium
of examination is English only.
Petitioners Nos. 3 to 10 are the students who allege
that they wish to appear in the coming PMT/PDT examinations
in Hindi or other regional languages and are being adversely
affected and discriminated against, and will be in a disad-
vantageous position in the forthcoming PMT/PDT examination
in comparison to those who have passed the higher secondary
or equivalent examination with English as their medium of
instruction. The petition seeks issue of writ directed
against the Union of India, Central Board of Secondary
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5
Education and Medical Council of India.
It is stated that in the year 1974 there was a survey by
National Council for Educational Research & Training (NCERT)
which, according to the petitioners, showed that out of the
students passing intermediate, about 92.5% take their exami-
nation in Hindi and other regional languages. The petition-
ers allege that Kothari Commission’s report on Civil Serv-
ices Examination had recommended that the examination papers
be set both in English and Hindi and the examinees should
have a choice of answering them in English, Hindi or any of
the 15 regional languages Constitutionally recognised. It
was stated that it was also noteworthy that the Kothari
Commission’s report had recommended that Hindi and other
regional languages in Universities would be necessary in
order to make use of the best potential available in the
country. In 1986 this Court in the case of Dr. Dinesh Kumar
& Ors. v. Motilal Nehru Medical College, Allahabad & Ors.,
[1986] 3 SCC 727 dealt with certain aspects of admission to
the Medical College, but not on the present aspect. Letters
and representations to the Ministry of Health & Family
Welfare, by the petitioners were made on 23rd September,
1988 requesting the Government to consider conducting the
PMT/PTD examinations in Hindi and other regional languages.
It is stated that a letter was issued on both December, 1988
by the Government of India to the effect that the Joint
Engineering Examination (JEE) for the five I.I.Ts. and the
591
Engineering College of Banaras be conducted in Indian lan-
guages from 1990 onwards. The petitioners assert that they
had received numerous letters and grievances from students
with Hindi medium background to press for this instant
petition.
When the application was moved before this Court on 17th
April, 1989 this Court had issued notice.
We have examined the matter and have heard Mr. L.M.
Singhvi. We are of the opinion that the prayers sought for
herein are not such which can be appropriately, properly and
legitimately dealt with under Article 32 of the Constitution
of India. The contention of the petitioners is, as mentioned
hereinbefore, that pre-medical studies in medical and dental
examination should be permitted in Hindi and other regional
languages and not in English alone, and the admission to the
Institutions should not be refused and/or examinations
should not be held in English alone if the examinees or the
entrants seek to appear in Hindi or other regional language.
Article 32 of the Constitution of India guarantees
enforcement of fundamental rights. It is well-settled that
the jurisdiction conferred on the Supreme Court under Arti-
cle 32 is an important and integral part of the Indian
Constitution but violation of a fundamental right is the
sine qua non for seeking enforcement of those rights by the
Supreme Court. In order to establish the violation of a
fundamental right, the Court has to consider the direct and
inevitable consequences of the action which is sought to be
remedied or the guarantee of which is sought to be enforced.
Mr Singhvi, counsel for the petitioners, contends that under
Article 29(2) of the Constitution no citizen shall be denied
admission into any educational institution maintained by the
State or receiving aid out of State funds on grounds only of
religion, race, caste, language or any of them. He contends
that by not holding the test in Hindi or other regional
languages, there is breach of Article 29(2). He also draws
our attention to Article 29(1) of the Constitution which
enjoins that any section of the citizens residing in the
territory of India or any part thereof having a distinct
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5
language, script or culture of his own, shall have right to
conserve the same. It is difficult to accept that in not
holding entrance examination in any particular language. be
it Hindi or regional language, amounts to denial of admis-
sion on the ground of language. Every educational institu-
tion has right to determine or set out its method of educa-
tion and conditions of examination and studies provided
these do not directly or indirectly have any casual connec-
tion with violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed by
the
592
Constitution. It may be that Hindi or other regional lan-
guages are more appropriate medium of imparting education to
very many and it may be appropriate and proper to hold the
examinations, entrance or otherwise, in any particular
regional or Hindi language, or it may be that Hindi or other
regional language because of development of that language,
is not yet appropriate medium to transmute or test the
knowledge or capacity that could be had in medical and
dental disciplines. It is a matter of formulation of policy
by the State or educational authorities in-charge-of any
particular situation. Where the existence of a fundamental
right has to be established by acceptance of a particular
policy or a course of action for which there is no legal
compulsion or statutory imperative, and on which there arc
divergent views, the same cannot be sought to be enforced by
Article 32 of the Constitution. Article 32 of the Constitu-
tion cannot be a means to indicate policy preference.
It is difficult to contend that the actions following
from nonacceptance of any policy perspective, amount to
direct and causal violation of the fundamental right of the
citizens guaranteed under the Constitution of India. Court
is not the forum to adjudicate upon the questions of policy
unless such a policy is the direct mandate of the Constitu-
tion.
It is well-settled that judicial review, in order to
enforce a fundamental right, is permissible of administra-
tive, legislative and governmental action or non-action, and
that the rights of the citizens of this country are to be
judged by the judiciary and judicial forums and not by the
administrators or executives. But it is equally true that
citizens of India are not to be governed by the Judges or
judiciary. If the governance is illegal or violative of
rights and obligations, other questions may arise out wheth-
er, as mentioned hereinbefore, it has to be a policy deci-
sion by the Government or the authority and thereafter
enforcement of that policy, the Court should not be, and we
hope would not be an appropriate forum for decision.
In the background of the facts and the circumstances of
the case and the nature of controversy that has arisen, we
are of the opinion that proper and appropriate remedy in a
situation where enforcement of the right depends upon the
acceptance of a policy of examination for admission in any
particular language to the Institution on that basis, is a
matter of policy. Whether in particular facts and the cir-
cumstances of this case admission to medical or dental
Institution by conducting examination in Hindi or other
regional languages would be appro-
593
priate or desirable or not, is a matter on which debate is
possible and the acceptance of one view over the other
involves a policy decision. It cannot be appropriately dealt
with by this Court, and order under Article 32 of the Con-
stitution in those circumstances would not be an appropriate
remedy.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5
Counsel for the petitioners drew our attention to the
facts that notice had been issued to the respondent. That is
true. On a closer examination of this matter we are of the
opinion that in view of the controversy involved herein, we
should not proceed with this application on that basis any
further.
Counsel for the petitioners then wanted to withdraw this
writ petition. He is permitted to do so, and the writ peti-
tion is dismissed as withdrawn but this will not prejudice
the rights, if any, of the petitioners, legal or otherwise,
to take appropriate steps, if any, as they may be advised,
in accordance with law.
N.P.V. Petition dismissed.
594