SANJIVKUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There are three petitioners in this case. They question the constitutionality and propriety of the Bihar Official Language Amendment Act, (Bihar Act 2 of 1981). The resultant notifications dated 17.4.1981. 12.6 1989 and 16,6.1989 issued by the Government in the department of official language are also assailed. The combined effect of the Act and the notifications is to declare "'Urdu" as the second official language in as many as 29 districts of Bihar. True copy of the Bihar Act 2 of 1981 is Annexure-1 and the notifications are Annexures 2, 2-A & 2-B. The petitioners contend that Act 2 of 1981 is ultra vires of the Constitution, since it is violative of Articles 343, 345 and 347 of the Constitution of India. It is stated that the Urdu-speaking people form 9.95% whereas the Hindi speaking people constitute 79.85%. For exercising the power under Article 347 of the Constitution, substantial proportion of the population of a State" should desire the use of any language spoken by them to be recognised by that State. It is not so herein. The Bihar Official Language Act, 1950 came into force in 1950. It is by the amendment Act (Act 2 of 1981), "Urdu" was adopted as the second official language. It was so declared in 15 districts by Annexure-2 and in 13 districts by Annexure 2-A and 2-B. This writ petition is filed on 11.12.1991. more than 10 years after the amendment was made and more than 10 years after it was brought into force in 15 districts and more than 2 years and 6 months after the amendment Act came into force in other districts.

(2.) The State has a filed a detailed counter-affidavit dated 6.1.1993. Apart from defending the amending Act and the notification as valid, it is stated that "Urdu" has been entertained in appplications in Government offices and supplying replies by the State Government for the last more than 10 year and has not created any problem and the challange made against the Act and the notifications is belated.

(3.) We heard counsel for the petitioners and also the learned Advocate-General who appeared for the respondents