USHA MEHTA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Writ Petition (Civil) No. 132 of 1995 this petition stems from a policy decision made by Maharashtra State Government whereby Marathi language study was made compulsory throughout the schools in that state. As a result, the English Medium Schools run by Gujarati linguistic minorities were com pelled to teach four languages (Hindi, English, marathi and mother tongue-Gujarati) as against the accepted 'three-language formula'. Constitutional validity of the imposition of Marathi language as a compulsory study in schools run by linguistic minorities is the main matter for judgment in this case.

(2.) Petitioner's case is that the imposition of compulsory Marathi is in violation of the fundamental right of the linguistic minority to establish an educational institution of 'their choice' under Article 30 (1) of the Constitution; that the 'choice' is meant to achieve not only the purpose of conserving the minority's mother tongue, language etc. but also giving their children a good general education; that the minority, in furtherance of their fundamental right under Article 29 (1) read with Article 30 (1) of the Constitution has a choice to teach the other subjects (Maths, Science etc. ) through such medium-mother tongue, Hindi or English - as commends to it and correspondingly a 'negative choice' not to teach such subjects in any such medium that does not commend to its perception of good general education; that the imposition of regional language is violative of the minority right to conserve its own language, script and culture and it has no constitutional duty or obligation to learn or promote the regional language; that the minority has a right and 'choice' to avoid the regional language if it feels that the same might conflict with their 'conservation' of mother tongue and/ or promotion or learning of Hindi and English by its students; that the only power of State vis-a-vis a minority educational institution is to make reasonable regulations to prevent its maladministration; that not even national or public interest or any State necessity can justify or legitimize any encroachment on the fundamental rights of a minority guaranteed under Article 30 (1) ; that in the matter of syllabi meant for an educational institution belonging to a linguistic minority, the State may have a power to make regulations for determining the standards of education in so far as both the languages and the other general subjects are concerned, but the State does not have the power to interfere with the language or languages that a linguistic minority has chosen to conserve, learn, teach and promote either as languages themselves or as the medium for other general subjects; that under the impugned syllabus circulated by the Board, the pattern of language studies is radically altered so as to impose Marathi as a compulsory subject upon non-Marathi speaking students studying in english medium schools and in the process, the study and imparting education in the mother tongue is effectively sacrificed; that the students studying in recognized English medium schools shall not be deprived of their right to take a paper of 100 marks in their mother tongue and of studying national language (Hindi) ; that the imposition of Marathi as a compulsory language is also violative of Article 19 (l) (a) as well as of Articles 19 (l) (e) , (g) and 21 of the Constitution and is also contrary to the constitutional scheme and rights envisaged in the various provisions of Part XVII and Articles 120 and 210 of the Constitution; that the impugned educational policy also prevents them from performing the fundamental duties under Article 51a of the Constitution in general and clauses (c) , (e) , (f) , (h) and (j) , thereof, in particular; that the impugned policy fails to take into account the linguistic structure and cosmopolitan character of Bombay region of maharashtra state, which for historical reasons stands on a different footing; that the impugned education policy of the State of Maharashtra discriminates against the students belonging to linguistic minority and is arbitrary and discriminatory; that therefore it is prayed before us to strike down the impugned decision.

(3.) The State of Maharashtra maintained the stand that the imposition of Marathi language or asking the schools to follow particular syllabi is a matter of State policy; that this position is settled by this Court in English medium Students' Parents Association v. State of Karnataka and others 1994 (1) SCC 550; that the considered policy decision of the state is based on the recommendations of the education Commission, the National Education policy, the expert opinion of several educationalists and the need to spread its regional language; that the Writ Petitioners had not considered the necessity of teaching Marathi language form the perspective of the need of the whole State of Maharashtra; that the imposition of Marathi language is not against the fundamental rights of the citizens, on the contrary the larger welfare of student community has been kept as the paramount consideration; that there is no bar to establish a non-Marathi regional language medium school in maharashtra but Marathi language has also to be taught in such schools; that all the States have switched over to making their regional language as the compulsory language of study since 1968; that the education policies of 1968 and 1986 has been instrumental in the process of national integration and the students belonging to different linguistic minority groups will be better equipped to get themselves assimilated in the culture and life of people of maharashtra; that the mother tongue of more than 80% students, whose mother tongue is not English and studying in English medium schools is Marathi; that the State has a right to determine the policies which help in the development of regional language; that the students whose mother tongue is not Marathi in English medium schools have the facility of studying their mother tongue as a composite subject of 50 marks; that as per the revised pattern of study of languages in English medium schools the students are required to study three languages - English and Marathi, and the third language either as full paper or in composite patters (Hindi 100 marks, or Hindi + one of the modem Indian language taught in the State, or Hindi + one classical language taught in the state) ; that therefore they submitted that the policy decision taken by the State to make marathi language a compulsory subject is not violative of Articles 29 or 30 or any other provisions of the Constitution and prayed to dismiss the Petition.