V RAJASEKARAN Vs. UNION TERRITORY OF PONDICHERRY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only prayer made by the petitioner is for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to hold the entrance test to the medical institution in the Union Territory of Pondicherry in Tamil Medium also. It has been vehemently, eloquently and in the usual style of Mr. Rathinam's forceful emotional approach to legal issues, contended that the direction be given to the respondents to hold entrance test to medical institution in Tamil language too, in holding the entrance test in Tamil. Not holding it violates Article 29 (2) of the Constitution of India. Yet, the counsel wants to rely on the bigone eras.

(2.) In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Hindi Hitrakshak Samithi v. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 851 wherein it is held as under (at page 853) :"where a writ petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution was filed seeking directing 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, it was held that the petition under Art. 32 was not maintainable. The jurisdiction conferred on the Supreme Court under Art. 32 is an important and integral part of the Constitution but violation of a fundamental right is the sine qua non for seeking enforcement of those rights by the Supreme Court. It could not be said that in not holding entrance examination in any particular language, be it is Hindi or regional language, there was denial of admission on the ground of language, so as to violate Art. 29 (2) of the Constitution. Every educational institution has right to determine or set out its method of education and conditions of examination and studies provided these do not directly or indirectly have any causal 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 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 change 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 are divergent views, the same cannot be sought to be enforced by S. 32 of the Constitution. Art. 32 of the Constitution cannot be a means to indicate policy preference. Thus, whether in particular facts and the circumstances of this 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 appropriately dealt with by the Supreme Court, and order under Art. 32 of the Constitution in those circumstances, would not be an appropriate remedy. "the facts and the question raised in the present writ petition are squarely covered by the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court. We are further of the considered view that it being a policy decision and for the policy makers to decide to hold the test in the language needed for the particular technical education, no interference is called for from the Court. The judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court is not only a binding precedent, but is the law of the land. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the judgment pointed out by the learned counsel needs review and reconsideration. That is the privilege of the learned counsel to submit before the Supreme Court. The High Courts cannot review or reconsider the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court. The writ petition is dismissed. Consequently, W. M. P. No. 13214 of 1998 is also dismissed. Petition dismissed.