JAVED NIAZ BEG Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Language is speech, sentiment, life literature and other dear values rolled into one and that is why when State policy on language goes awry explosive tensions erupt and courts cannot allow legalism to override realism when asked to quash some sensitive linguistic formula with emotive overtones. This prefatory caveat and its profound implications must be appreciated before we eat the forbidden fruit of policy-making by striking down the Central Government's amendatory notification bearing on language papers for Central Services Examination or the All India Services Examination. The realisation that language is at the root of culture, that communities sometimes sacrifice their very existence for survival of their mother tongue and that tolerance and mutual accommodation on the linguistic front are integral to national integration must persuade the court to keep its hands off the delicate strategic policy of the State relating to the people's language. Indeed, rich diversity of India and the indispensable unity of the nation make it a linguistic imperative that a spirit of generosity to territorial communities, especially minorities without political pull is of the quintessence of our constitutional policy. Challenges to the language formula prescribed by the Government of India in the rules for the combined competitive examinations to the All India Services and the like have to be viewed against this back-drop. In short, the perspective which we propose to adopt has to be perceptive of the linguistic values of India with its plurality of tongues, dialects and languages. Equality before the law is the kernel of our constitutional order. But equality is not a static, rigid, formal or pedantic concept. A sensitised social scientist will easily agree that equality is dynamic, flexible, creative and developmentally sensitive, especially in the Third World conditions like ours. Once this imaginative approach is adopted, the submission of counsel will lose all force. Indeed, it will be counterproductive of the equality on which it is formally founded as we will presently indicate.

(2.) These writ petitions are by candidates of the Hindi belt of India, who challenge certain amendments to the Rules for the competitive examinations to the All India Services and allied categories. We may extract the relevant part of the Notification dated 17-3-1979:

(3.) The gravamen of the charge against this notification is that candidates hailing from the North Eastern States/Union Territories of Arunachal Pradesh, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram and Nagaland are not obligated to take Paper I on Indian languages. Why should this discrimination be shown in their favour, urges counsel for the petitioners. While favourable treatment for women and children, backward classes, scheduled castes and scheduled tribes is sanctified by the Constitution, the linguistic concession shown to the Indian brethren in the remote regions we have just referred to is casting gated as unconstitutional, unequal and invidiously discriminatory. In the familiar jargon, counsel contends that inequality among equals is the intent and effect of the Notification and the vice of discrimination must prove lethal to its validity. We are not impressed with this submission.