Madras High Court
M.Selva Kumar vs Union Of India on 2 December, 2021
WP (MD)No.19912/2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 02.12.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
W.A.(MD)No.19912 of 2021
M.Selva Kumar .. Petitioner
Vs.
1. Union of India
Rep. by its Principal Secretary
of the President of India,
Rastrapathi Bhavan,
New Delhi-110 003.
2. Union of India
Rep. by its Principal and Special Secretary
of Official Languages Department,
Home Ministry,
Lok Nayak Bhavan,
New Delhi-110 003.
3. Union of India
Rep. by its Principal Secretary of
Human Resource Development Ministry,
Lok Nayak Bhavan,
New Delhi-110 003.
4. Union of India
Rep. by its Principal Secretary
of Ministry of Parliament Affairs,
Parliament Building,
New Delhi-110 003.
5. The Secretary of Central Board of Education,
Sixaa Kendra, No.2, Community Centre,
Preeth Vigar, New Delhi-110092.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 1/16
WP (MD)No.19912/2021
6. The Commissioner of
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sankethan,
Head Office, Shakit Jee Sing Mark,
Sixaa Kendra, Preeth Vigar,
New Delhi-110 092.
7. State of Tamil Nadu
Rep. by its Secretary of
School Education Department,
St. George Fort,
Chennai-600 009.
8. The Zonal Executive Officer of
Central Board of School Education,
Chennai Zone, 3' J Block,
16th Main Road, Anna Nagar (West),
Chennai-600 040.
9. The Assistant Commissioner
of Kendriya Vidyala Sankethan,
Head Office of South Zone,
Indian Institute of Technology's Block,
Chennai-600 036. .. Respondents
***
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus (a) Directing the respondents 2 to 9
to make Tamil as the compulsory subject as a medium of instruction and
in the language category in all schools functioning under the Union
Government and its boards in Tamil Nadu ; (b) similarly other 20
languages which are followed as mother tongues of all other States are
the compulsory subject of the schools functioning under the Union
Governments be it Kendriya Vidyalaya, CBSE and other form of Schools
functioning under any banner under the authority of all respondents in
Union Government of India.
***
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Selva Kumar
Party-in-person
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 2/16
WP (MD)No.19912/2021
For Respondents : Ms.Victoria Gowri,
Assistant Solicitor General of India
for RR 1 to 4
Mr.P.Karthick
for R5 & R8
Mr.P.Subbaraj,
Government Advocate for R7
Mr.E.T.Rajendran for R6 & R9
ORDER
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J.
Kg;gJ nfho KfKilahs; caph;
bkha;k;g[w bthd;Wilahs; ? ,ts;
brg;g[ bkhHpgjp bdl;Lil ahs;vdpw;
rpe;jid xd;Wilahs; ? ghujpahu;/
To translate in English verbatim,
"She has 30 Crore faces, but in spirit she is one.
She speaks 18 languages, but in thought she is one."
Subramanya Bharathi - a Social Reformist Tamil Poet and Polyglot Writer
hails from Tuticorin District in Tamil Nadu, composed this song about the
Mother India, wherein, he lauded "unity in diversity", though 18
languages were spoken in India with single thought. While celebrating
Tamil language, he poetically wrote @ahkwpe;j bkhHpfspny jkpH;bkhHp nghy;
,dpjhtJ v';Fk; fhnzhk;/@
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 3/16
WP (MD)No.19912/2021
2. The petitioner, who is the son of the same soil, sought a
direction to the respondents 2 to 9 to make Tamil as the compulsory
subject as a medium of instruction and in the language category in all
schools functioning under the Union Government and its boards in Tamil
Nadu and also sought further direction to make other 20 languages,
which are followed as mother tongues of all other States, as the
compulsory subjects of the schools functioning under the Union
Governments be it Kendriya Vidyalaya, CBSE and other form of Schools
functioning under any banner under the authority of all respondents in
the Government of India.
3. The petitioner, claims to be the ardent lover of Tamil, filed
this writ petition pro bono publico seeking the above directions. His
grievance is that in Kendriya Vidyalaya Schools (KVs), which are 52 in
number in Tamil Nadu and 1228 in the country come under the Central
Board of School Education (CBSE) and run by the Government of India,
either the Tamil or the regional language/mother tongue of the State is
not taught even as an optional language, but, on the other hand, Hindi
and Sanskrit are being taught as a Medium of Instruction or one of the
subjects, which is a violation of the Constitutional scheme. According to
him, about 13 lakhs students of the nation, who constitute 73% of the
total pupil population, are from non-Hindi speaking States and forcing
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 4/16
WP (MD)No.19912/2021
them to read Hindi or Sanskrit is tantamount to breach of their
fundamental rights. Thus, according to him, Tamil, being the oldest
language declared as a "Classical Language", should be made as
compulsory subject and also medium of instruction in all the schools
functioning under the Government of India and its boards in the State of
Tamil Nadu. He sought similar direction to give similar treatment to other
20 languages, besides Hindi and Sanskrit, listed in the Eighth Schedule of
the Constitution. He submitted a representation to the respondents and
some other higher officials making the said claim on 21.02.2021 followed
by e-mails of even date. He also sent reminder on 31.08.2021. Since
there is no whisper from the authorities, the petitioner relying upon
certain newspaper reports to substantiate his claim, filed this writ petition
invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution.
4. Heard the Party-in-person, the learned Assistant Solicitor
General of India appearing on behalf of the Union of India and the CBSE,
learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State of Tamil
Nadu and also the learned counsel for the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan.
5. The Party-in-Person contended that the reply dated
15.09.2021 obtained by him from the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 5/16
WP (MD)No.19912/2021
Regional Office, Chennai, under the Right to Information Act shows the
sorry state of affairs in the KVs, as Sanskrit and Hindi are made as
compulsory subjects from Class VI to Class VIII, while they are optional
subjects among five from Class IX, but Tamil is not a compulsory subject,
much less not even taught as a subject to those class students. It is his
submission that while 101 Hindi Teachers and 50 Sanskrit Teachers are
employed in KVs in the State, not even a single Tamil Teacher is
employed, as there is no necessity for the same, which violates the
fundamental rights of the students of the State. It is also submitted that
the Central Government have been expending huge sums of money to
promote Sanskrit language, such treatment was not given to the other
Eighth Schedule languages, much less, Classical languages, which is also
again violative of the constitutional scheme.
6. It is to be stated that there were two limbs in the prayer
made by the writ petitioner. The first one pertains to Tamil language,
while the second limb of the prayer relates to 20 other languages found
in the Eighth Schedule of the Constitution of India. This Court wonders as
to how such a blanket prayer could be made by the writ petitioner.
Nevertheless, this Court has no jurisdiction to hear all the stakeholders of
the respective States and thus, we are of the view that this writ petition
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 6/16
WP (MD)No.19912/2021
is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable, insofar as the second limb
of the prayer is concerned.
7. Now coming to the first part of the prayer, there is no quarrel
with regard to the status of Tamil Language, which is the oldest language
and declared as "Classical Language". There is no need to prove the
same by way of newspaper reports, which, howsoever reliable,
trustworthy and authentic, need not relied upon by this Court to arrive at
a just decision in the instant case.
8. At this juncture, it is to be stated that the concept of
establishment of Kendriya Vidyalayas is to address the difficulties faced
by the wards of transferable Central Government Employees, who have
to move from one place to another owing to their official requirements
and a uniform school education system across the country is a necessity
to those students to seamlessly continue their education, irrespective of
the transfer of their parents. Merely because one of the parents hailing
from other State has to serve in the State of Tamil Nadu, for a few
years, their wards cannot be forced to study Tamil as a Medium of
Instruction, so also as a subject. Similarly, wards of Officers, who hail
from Tamil Nadu and serve in 'home' state, but later transferred to some
other State, cannot be expected to suffer by changing the medium of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 7/16
WP (MD)No.19912/2021
Instruction from Tamil to Hindi or any other regional language of the
State concerned. Even the people of a particular State having the
regional language of that State as mother tongue may settle down in
another State and their wards may not be in a position to read and write
their mother tongue.
9. In such backdrop, as a common scheme of education English
is taught compulsorily from Classes I to XII and Hindi is taught
compulsorily from Classes I to VIII and it is optional in Classes XI and X
and the same can be chosen either as the second language or as an
elective by the students in Classes XI and XII. But, Sanskrit is
mandatorily taught from Classes VI to VIII alone and it is optional to
classes IX and X. Article 111 of the Education Code for Kendriya
Vidyalayas captioned 'Medium of Instruction' clearly spells out that "the
medium of instruction shall be Hindi and English. Separate classes for
Hindi and English medium shall be provided from class I to XII". Thus, it
is the right of the students to choose one of these two languages of their
choice as medium of instruction through their parents/guardians and the
same cannot be found fault with, in view of the circumstances, in which,
the Officers are posed, i.e., their trasferrable nature of job, etc.,.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 8/16
WP (MD)No.19912/2021
10. Now coming to the question of making Tamil as a subject, it
is to be stated that having felt the need to provide platform for learning
Regional language, as an additional measure within the broad scheme of
common school education, Article 112 has been introduced in the
Education Code for Kendriya Vidyalayas and there is absolutely no bar to
teach Tamil or regional language in KVs, if 20 or more students opt for
learning and the said provision reads as follows :
"Article 112. REGIONAL LANGUAGES : Additional
arrangement for teaching of the regional language / mother tongue
shall be made, provided 20 or more students are willing to opt for the
same. For this, part-time contractual teacher shall be appointed after
obtaining sanction of the Dy. Commissioner. Teaching of these will be
introduced from class VI and will continue up to class VIII and where
need be in class IX and X also. The teaching will be during school
hours for about two to three periods per week. The teaching or
regional language / mother tongue shall be stopped at the end of
February each year."
A reading of the above provision would go to show that additional
arrangement for teaching of the regional language / mother tongue could
be made from class VI to VIII and where need be, it is taught upto class
X. Further, for making arrangement for teaching regional language /
mother tongue, 20 or more students have to opt it. This makes it amply
clear that there are ways and means for the students to read their
mother tongue in KVs also. Keeping all these in mind, the option to
exercise the medium of instruction and the choice to read and study a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 9/16
WP (MD)No.19912/2021
language judiciously is given to the parents/guardians and such policy of
the Government of India need not be interfered with by this Court.
11. At this juncture, it is apposite to quote the judgment of the
First Bench of this Court dated 14.12.2015 made in WP No.16440 of
2014 (Majlis-E-Tahaffuz-E-Urudu, Tamil Nadu rep. by its President
K.Nasarullah V. Commissioner and Secretary to Government,
Department of Education, State of Tamil Nadu), in which, one of us
(Pushpa Sathyanarayana, J.) is a party, wherein, this Court dealt with the
writ petition filed by a religious minority trust questioning the validity of
Section 3(1) of the Tamil Learning Act, 2006, as it entrenches the rights
of minorities under Articles 29 and 30(1) of the Constitution of India to
establish and administer educational institutions of their choice. While
dismissing the writ petition, it has been held as follows :
"8. The office memorandum dated 21.8.2014 was issued by the
Ministry of Minority Affairs calling for Action Taken Report. This was
also in the context of the requirements of all schools affiliated to CBSE
to record in the admission form of the students, the mother tongue of
the child, the first language preferred and the optional language, as
also the requirement stipulated under Section 29(2)(f) of the Right of
Children to Free and Compulsory Education (RTE) Act, 2009 to provide
for medium of instructions to the students practicably in the child's
mother tongue.
9. In pursuant to the responses received, the Ministry of Human
Resources Development has instructed all the schools affiliated to the
Central Board of Secondary Education by its letter dated 25.9.2014, to
record the details of the mother tongue of the child, preference of first
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 10/16
WP (MD)No.19912/2021
language and optional language in the admission form itself so as to
ensure that the children belonging to linguistic minority groups are at
the reach of the facility for instruction in their mother tongue at the
primary stage of education. It is also stated in the comments passed
by the Ministry of Human Resources Development that the Government
is actively considering bringing out a new policy on education and that
during the formulation stage, it will consult all stakeholders including
linguistic minorities.
.......
15. Introduction of provincial language is a matter of
formulation of policy by the State educational authorities. While
fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) is subject to the reasonable
restrictions that could be imposed by the State by virtue of the power
under Article 19(6), the fundamental right under Articles 29 and 30(1)
is subject to the power of the State Government to make regulations to
regulate the administration of the institutions.
16. The right guaranteed to religious and linguistic minorities by
Article 30(1) is two fold namely, (i) to establish and (ii) to administer
educational institutions of their choice. The administration of the
educational institutions has certain limitation as it is subject to
regulation by the State. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has, in a catena of
decisions, ruled that High Courts cannot interfere in the Government's
policy decisions since the scope of judicial review is limited in
questioning such decisions.
17. One cannot dispute the proposition that policy decision alone
can decide which policy should be adopted after considering all points
from different angles and hence, there can be no second opinion that
maintaining policy decisions must be left to the Government.
18. Broadly, a policy decision is subject to judicial review on the
following grounds :
"(a) if it is unconstitutional;
(b) if it is dehors the provisions of the Act and the
Regulations;
(c) if the delegatee has acted beyond its power of delegation;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 11/16
WP (MD)No.19912/2021
(d) if the executive policy is contrary to the statutory or a
larger policy."
19. It is a settled principle of law that matters relating to
framing and implementation of policy primarily fall in the domain of the
Government. It is an established requirement of good governance that
the Government should frame policies which are fair and beneficial to
the public at large. Under Article 162 of the Constitution, the State
Government has executive powers co-extensive with its legislative
powers. As such, the State undoubtedly has powers to prescribe any
course of study which is in the interest of excellence in education. This
power would certainly include the power to prescribe language or
languages, as course of study in the educational institutions."
As held in the aforesaid judgment, it is to be reiterated that the settled
principle of law is that matters relating to framing and implementation of
policy primarily fall in the domain of the Government and it is an
established requirement of good governance that the Government should
frame policies which are fair and beneficial to the public at large.
12. We are reminisced of the fact that Subramanya Bharathi
stated to be proficient in around 14 languages, which includes 3 non-
Indian languages, i.e., foreign languages. It is widely known that many
Indians, including one of our former Prime Ministers, could speak more
than a dozen languages. There is no bar for anyone to learn as many as
new languages as he or she wants to learn, be it to speak alone, or read
and write as well. In the present technical age, the globe became a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 12/16
WP (MD)No.19912/2021
village and the smart new generation can read computer languages, so
also the language of their choice, irrespective of their age, if they have
interest. It is for the parents and after certain years, the students, who
have to take a call on this issue and the Courts cannot be expected to
protrude into these aspects, which are within the domain of the policy-
makers and the people concerned.
13. Nevertheless, we are of the view that excepting collecting
some paper and web news about the beauty and glory of the Classical
Tamil language, the petitioner has not undertaken any spade work to file
this writ petition seeking a prayer of this nature, which has ramifications
on the future assets of our nation, i.e., children. However, we are
refraining from imposing any cost on him.
14. With the observations made hereinabove, the writ petition
stands dismissed. No costs.
(P.S.N., J.) (P.V., J.)
02.12.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet: Yes
gg
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 13/16
WP (MD)No.19912/2021
To
1. The Principal Secretary
of the President of India,
Union of India,
Rastrapathi Bhavan,
New Delhi-110 003.
2. The Principal and Special Secretary,
Official Languages Department,
Home Ministry,
Union of India,
Lok Nayak Bhavan,
New Delhi-110 003.
3. The Principal Secretary,
Human Resource Development Ministry,
Union of India,
Lok Nayak Bhavan,
New Delhi-110 003.
4. The Principal Secretary,
Ministry of Parliament Affairs,
Union of India,
Parliament Building,
New Delhi-110 003.
5. The Secretary,
Central Board of Education,
Sixaa Kendra, No.2, Community Centre,
Preeth Vigar, New Delhi-110092.
6. The Commissioner,
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sankethan,
Head Office, Shakit Jee Sing Mark,
Sixaa Kendra, Preeth Vigar,
New Delhi-110 092.
7. The Principal Secretary,
School Education Department,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Fort St. George,
Chennai-600 009.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 14/16
WP (MD)No.19912/2021
8. The Zonal Executive Officer,
Central Board of School Education,
Chennai Zone, 3' J Block,
16th Main Road, Anna Nagar (West),
Chennai-600 040.
9. The Assistant Commissioner,
Kendriya Vidyala Sankethan,
Head Office of South Zone,
Indian Institute of Technology's Block,
Chennai-600 036.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 15/16
WP (MD)No.19912/2021
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J.
AND
P.VELMURUGAN, J.
gg
W.P.(MD)No.19912 of 2021
02.12.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 16/16
