1962 (2) TMI 90 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Authority of the University to impose Gujarati or Hindi as the exclusive medium of instruction.
2. Legislative competence of the State to enact laws imposing such media.
3. Alleged infringement of fundamental rights under Articles 29(1) and 30(1) of the Constitution.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Authority of the University to Impose Gujarati or Hindi as the Exclusive Medium of Instruction:

The main contention was whether the Gujarat University had the authority under the Gujarat University Act, 1949, to prescribe Gujarati or Hindi as the exclusive medium of instruction. The High Court of Gujarat had ruled that the University did not have such authority under Section 4(27) or any other provisions of the Act, stating that the University could only lay down Gujarati or Hindi as one of the media of instruction and not as the sole medium. The Supreme Court upheld this view, emphasizing that the power to "promote" the use of Gujarati or Hindi as a medium of instruction did not imply the power to impose it exclusively. The indefinite article "a" before "medium of instruction" indicated that Gujarati or Hindi was to be one of several media, not the exclusive medium. The Court also noted that the power to impose an exclusive medium was not implicitly conferred by other clauses of Section 4.

2. Legislative Competence of the State to Enact Laws Imposing Such Media:

The Supreme Court examined whether the State Legislature had the competence to enact laws imposing Gujarati or Hindi as the exclusive medium of instruction. The Court analyzed the legislative entries in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution, particularly Entry 11 of List II (State List) and Entry 66 of List I (Union List). The Court concluded that while the State Legislature had the power to prescribe syllabi and courses of study, the Union Parliament had an overriding power to ensure that such prescriptions did not impair standards of education or coordination of such standards. The Court held that legislation relating to the medium of instruction, if it had a direct bearing on the coordination and determination of standards in higher education, would fall within the Union's legislative competence under Entry 66 of List I. Therefore, the State's power to legislate on the medium of instruction was subject to the Union's power to ensure coordination and determination of standards.

3. Alleged Infringement of Fundamental Rights under Articles 29(1) and 30(1) of the Constitution:

The petitioners had also argued that the imposition of Gujarati or Hindi as the exclusive medium of instruction infringed upon their fundamental rights under Articles 29(1) and 30(1) of the Constitution, which protect the rights of minorities to conserve their language, script, and culture and to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice. However, the Supreme Court declined to hear arguments on this issue due to a lack of sufficient pleading and evidence. The Court noted that the decision on whether such legislation infringed these fundamental rights depended on proof of several facts, such as the existence of a distinct language, script, or culture of a section of citizens for whom the educational institution catered, or the existence of a minority based on religion or language. Since these facts were not adequately pleaded or evidenced, the Court refrained from expressing any opinion on this issue.

Separate Judgment by Subba Rao, J.:

Justice Subba Rao delivered a dissenting judgment, disagreeing with the majority view. He argued that the State Legislature had the constitutional competence to make a law prescribing an exclusive medium of instruction in the affiliated colleges under Entry 11 of List II. He contended that the power to prescribe a medium of instruction was implicit in the power to provide for instruction and to guide teaching, and that the University had the implied power to prescribe an exclusive medium of instruction. He also disagreed with the interpretation of Section 4(27) of the Gujarat University Act, arguing that it did not derogate from the University's power to prescribe a medium of instruction.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's ruling that the Gujarat University did not have the authority to impose Gujarati or Hindi as the exclusive medium of instruction and that the State Legislature's power to legislate on the medium of instruction was subject to the Union's power to ensure coordination and determination of standards in higher education. The Court did not express any opinion on the alleged infringement of fundamental rights due to insufficient pleading and evidence. The separate judgment by Justice Subba Rao provided a dissenting view, arguing in favor of the University's and the State Legislature's powers.