1. Dispute over admission to English medium classes in an affiliated college following University statutes imposing Gujarati or Hindi as the exclusive medium of instruction. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
1962 Supreme(SC) 297
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
21st September, 1962
B.P. SINHA, C.J.I., S.J. IMAM, K. SUBBA RAO, K.N. WANCHOO, J.C. SHAH AND N. RAJAOPALA AYYANGAR, JJ.
1. Gujarat University and another (In C.A. No. 234 of 62) and 2. State of Gujarat (In C.A. No. 262 of 62), Appellants
Versus
Shri Krishna Ranganath Mudhokar and others (in both appeals), Respondents.
1. Principal St. Xaviers College, Ranchi (In C. A. No. 234/62) and 2. Council for the Indian School Certificate Examination and others (In both the appeals), Interveners.
Civil Appeals Nos. 234 and 262 of 1962.
Advocates appeared
M /s. J. C. Bhatt and H. K. Thakore, Adocates and Mr. V. J. Merchant, Advocate of M/s. Gagrat and Co., for Appellants (In C.A. No. 234 of 62 and Respondents Nos. 2 nd 3 in C. A. No. 262 of 62;) Mr. N. A. Palkhivala, Senior Advocate (Mr. C. T. Daru, Advocate and M/s. J. B. Dadachanji, O. C. Mathur and Ravinder Narain, Advocates of M/s. J. B. Dadachanji and Co. with him, for Respondent No. 1(In both the appeals ; Mr. M. C. Setalvad Attorney-General for India and Mr. J. M. Thakore, Advocate General for the State Gujarat (M/s. M. G. Doshit and R. H. Dhebar, Advocates with them), for Respondent No.3 (In C. A. No. 234 of 62); and Appellant (In C.A. No.262 of 62). M/s. I. M. Nanavati and R. Gopalakrishanan, Advocates, for Intervener No. 1 (In C. A. No.234 of 62) M/s. Frank Anthony, Charanjit Talwar and P. C. Agrawala, Advocates and M/s. J. B. Dadachanji, O.C. Mathur and Ravinder Narain, Advocates of M/s. J. B. Dadachanji and Co., for Intervener No. 2 (in both the Appeals).
Advocates:
C.T.Daru, CHARANJIT TALVAR, FRANK ANTHONY, GAGRAT JANEDRA LAL, H.K.THAKORE, J.B.DADACHAN, J.C.BHATT, J.M.THAKAR, M.C.SETALVAD, M.G.DOSHIT, M.NANAVATI, N.A.PALKHIWALA, O.C.MATHUR, P.C.AGRAWAL, R.GOPAL KRISHNAN, R.H.Dhebar, RAVINDER NARAYAN, Ravindra Narayan, V.J.MERCHANT
C.T.Daru, CHARANJIT TALVAR, FRANK ANTHONY, GAGRAT JANEDRA LAL, H.K.THAKORE, J.B.DADACHAN, J.C.BHATT, J.M.THAKAR, M.C.SETALVAD, M.G.DOSHIT, M.NANAVATI, N.A.PALKHIWALA, O.C.MATHUR, P.C.AGRAWAL, R.GOPAL KRISHNAN, R.H.Dhebar, RAVINDER NARAYAN, Ravindra Narayan, V.J.MERCHANT
The power to "promote" a language as "a medium" of instruction does not authorize the imposition of that language as an exclusive medium. Furthermore, the Union's power to coordinate and determine standards in higher education overrides State legislation on the medium of instruction if it impairs those standards.
Headnote:(A) University Act - Sections 4(27), 18(1)(xiv) and 38A - Constitution of India - Seventh Schedule, List I Entry 66 and List II Entry 11 - Power to prescribe medium of instruction - Interpretation of "promote" and "a medium" - Whether the power to promote the use of a language as a medium of instruction includes the power to impose it as an exclusive medium - Held: No. The use of the word "promote" and the indefinite article "a" suggests the language is to be one of several media, not the sole medium. (Paras 14-16)
(B) Constitution of India - Seventh Schedule - Entry 11 List II and Entry 66 List I - Legislative competence regarding education - Coordination and determination of standards in institutions of higher education - Power to legislate on the medium of instruction - Held: While the State has power over education, the Union's power to coordinate and determine standards under Entry 66 List I prevails if the medium of instruction directly impacts those standards. (Paras 23-27)
Facts of the case:
A student was denied admission to classes where instruction was imparted in a specific language because the University had issued statutes prescribing regional languages as the exclusive media of instruction and examination. The High Court had declared these statutes void, ruling that the University lacked the power to forbid the use of other languages.
Findings of Court:
The University did not have the authority to impose an exclusive medium of instruction under the Act. The legislative power of the State to prescribe a medium is restricted by the Union's overriding power to ensure coordination and determination of standards in higher education, particularly where the choice of medium affects the availability of textbooks and competent instructors.
Issues: Whether the University Act authorized the imposition of an exclusive medium of instruction and whether such legislation would infringe upon the Union's power to coordinate and determine standards in higher education under the Constitution.
Ratio Decidendi: The statutory language "promote the development... and the use of [languages] as a medium of instruction" does not confer the power to exclude other media. Additionally, the Union's power under Entry 66 List I includes the power to legislate on the medium of instruction to the extent that it affects the maintenance of educational standards, thereby excluding such matters from the State's competence under Entry 11 List II.
Result: Appeals dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- constitutional law
- administrative law
- education law
Table of Contents
2. Whether the University Act authorizes imposing an exclusive medium of instruction and whether such legislation infringes Union powers regarding coordination of standards in higher education. (Para 6 , 12 , 35 )
3. The term promote and the indefinite article a in Section 4(27) indicate power to encourage, not to impose an exclusive medium of instruction. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 21 )
4. Power to promote a language as a medium of instruction does not include power to impose it exclusively; Union power over standards includes medium if it affects quality. (Para 15 , 26 , 27 )
5. Statutes imposing Gujarati or Hindi as exclusive media of instruction are invalid; however, provisions continuing English medium and penalty clauses are upheld. (Para 31 , 32 )
6. Does the power to promote a language as a medium of instruction include the power to impose it as an exclusive medium?
No. The use of the word promote and the indefinite article a suggests the power is to encourage the language as one of several media, not to exclude others. (Para 15 , 16 )
7. How is the State's power over education under Entry 11 List II reconciled with the Union's power over standards under Entry 66 List I?
While States generally control education, the Union's power to coordinate and determine standards prevails if State legislation on the medium of instruction prejudicially affects those standards, such as by lowering educational quality. (Para 23 , 24 , 26 , 27 )
8. Does a University possess an implied power to prescribe an exclusive medium of instruction in the absence of express statutory authority?
The majority held that the power to indicate a medium does not carry an implied power to impose an exclusive medium. Conversely, the dissent argued such power is implicit in the authority to provide instruction. (Para 17 , 53 )
Judgment
SHAH, J. (with him. B. P. Sinha, C.J.I., Imam, Wanchoo and Rajagopala Ayyangar, JJ.) :
Shrikant son of Shri Krishna Mudholkar appeared for the Secondary School Certificate Examination held by the State of Bombay in March 1960 and was declared successful. He took instruction in the various subjects prescribed for the examination through the medium of Marathi (which is his mother tongue) and answered the questions at the examination also in the medium of Marathi. Shrikant joined the St. Xavier s College affiliated to the University of Gujarat, in the First Year Arts class and was admitted in the section in which instructions were imparted through the medium of English. After successfully completing the First Year Arts course in March, 1961, Shrikant applied for admission to this classes preparing for the Intermediate Arts examination of the University through the medium of English. The Principal of the College informed Shrikant that in view of the provisions of the Gujarat University Act 1949 and the Statues 207, 208 and 209 framed by the Senate of the University, as amended in 1961 he could not without the sanction of the University permit him to attend classes in which instructions were imparted through the medium of English. Shri Krishna, father of Shrikant then moved the Vice-Chancellor of the University for sanction to permit Shrikant to attend the "English medium classes" in the St. Xavier s College. The Registrar of the University declined to grant the request, but by another letter Shrikant was "allowed to keep English as a medium of examination" but not for instruction.
2. A petition was then filed by Shrikrishna Mudholkar on behalf of himself and his minor son Shrikant in the High Court of Gujarat for a writ or order in the nature of mandamus or other writ, direction or order requiring the University of Gujarat to treat Ss. 4(27), 18(i) (xiv) and 38A of the Gujarat University Act, 1949, and Statues 207, 208 and 209 as void and inoperative and to forbear from acting upon or enforcing those provisions and requiring the Vice-Chancellor to treat the letters or circulars issued by him in connection with the medium of instruction as illegal and to forbear from acting upon or enforcing the same, and also requiring the University to forbear from objecting to or from prohibiting the admission of Shrikant to "the English medium Intermediate Arts class," and requiring the Principal of the College to admit Shrikant to the "English medium Intermediate Arts class" on the footing that the impugned provisions of the Act, Statutes and letters and circulars were void and inoperative.
3. The High Court of Gujarat by order dated January 24, 1962 issued the writs prayed for. The University and the State of Gujarat have separately appealed to this Court with certificates of fitness granted by the High Court.
4. The judgment of the High Court proceeded upon diverse grounds which are summarised in their judgment as follows:
(1) Statutes 207 and 209 in so far as they seek to lay down and impose Gujarati and/or Hindi in Devnagri script as media of instruction and examination in institutions other than those maintained by the University are unauthorised and therefore null and void, for neither S. 4(27) nor any other provision of the Act empowers the University to lay down Gujarati or Hindi as a medium of instruction and examination in such institutions or to forbid the use of English as a medium of instruction and examination for and in such institutions;
(2) In any event, the University has the power only to lay down Gujarati or Hindi as one of the media of instruction and examination and not as the only medium of instruction and examination to the exclusion of other languages;
(3) The proviso to cl. 27 of S. 4 of the Gujarat University Act as amended by Act 4 of 1961 constitutes an encroachement on the field of Entry 66 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution and is therefore beyond the legislative competence of the State and th
