SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, CJI., K.N. SAIKIA AND M.M. PUNCHHI, JJ.
Hindi Hitrakshak Samiti and others, Petitioners
Versus
Union of India and others, Respondents
Writ Petn. (Civil) No.428 of 1989, D/- 26-2-1990.
- as held in the case of Hindi Hitrakshak Samiti v. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 851, it could not be said that in not holding entrance examination in any particular language, be it Hindi or regional language, there was denial of admission on the ground of language so as to violate Article 29 (2) of the Constitution.
Judgment
SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, C.J.I. - This is an application under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India for issue of a writ of mandamus directing the Central Government to hold pre-medical and pre-dental entrance examinations in Hindi and other regional languages as, according to the petitioners, mandated by Art.29(2) of the Constitution of India. The petition is by nine petitioners Petitioner No.1 is Hindi Hitrakshak Samiti which is stated to be a society formed with the aim and object of propagating and ensuring the propagation of the national language Hindi and other regional languages; and to further the cause of the citizens of India who are educated in any one or more of the languages and who face difficulty in competitive examinations in which the medium of examination is English only.
2. Petitioners Nos. 3 to 10 are the students who allege that they wish to appear in the coming PMT/PDT examinations in Hindi or other regional languages and are being adversely affected and discriminated against, and will be in a disadvantageous position in the forthcoming PMT/PDT examination in comparison to those who have passed the higher secondary or equivalent examination with English as their medium of instruction. The petition seeks issue of writ directed against the Union of India, Central Board of Secondary Education and Medical Council of India.
3. It is stated that in the year 1974 there was a Survey by National Council for Educational Research & Training (NCERT) which, according to the petitioners, showed that out of the students passing intermediate, about 92.5% take their examination in Hindi and other regional languages. The petitioners allege that Kothari Commissions report on Civil Services Examination had recommended that the examination papers be set both in English and Hindi and the examinees should have a choice of answering them in English, Hindi or any of the 15 regional languages constitutionally recognised. It was stated that it was also noteworthy that the Kothari Commissions report had recommended that Hindi and other regional languages in Universities would be necessary in order to make use of the best potential available in the country. In 1986 this Court in the case of Dr. Dinesh Kumar v. Motilal Nehru Medical College, Allahabad, (1986) 3 SCC 727 dealt with certain aspects of admission to the Medical College, but not on the present -aspect. Letters and representations to the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, by the petitioners were made on 23rd Sept., 1988 requesting the Government to consider conducting the PMT/PDT examinations in Hindi and other regional languages. It is stated that a letter was issued on 10th Dec., 1988 by the Government of India to the effect that the Joint Engineering Examination (JEE) for the five I.I .Ts. and the Engineering College of Banaras be conducted in Indian languages from 1990 onwards. The petitioners assert that they had received numerous letters and grievances from Students. with Hindi medium background to press for this instant petition.
4. When the application was moved before this Court on 17th April, 1989 this Court had issued notice.
5. We have examined the matter and have heard Mr. L. M. Singhvi. We are of the opinion that the prayers sought for herein are not such which can be appropriately, properly and legitimately dealt with under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India. The contention of the petitioners is, as mentioned hereinbefore, 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.
6. Art. 32 of the Constitution of India guarantees enforcement of fundamental rights. It is well-settled that, the jurisdiction conferred on the SC under Art. 32 is an important and integral part of
referred to : Dinesh Kumar v. Motilal Nehru Medical College, Allahabad
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.