Right to receive primary education in mother tongue forms part of freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) and obligates States to implement constitutional and policy mandates for inclusive quality education.

JUDGMENT :

Sandeep Mehta, J.

1. Heard.

2. Leave granted.

3. The ability to understand and be understood in one’s own language is not a matter of convenience, but a matter of existential rights, for comprehension must necessarily precede meaningful participation in the society and day to day life activities. It is in this context that language, being the means of expression, is the very essence of an individual. It serves as the medium through which thought takes shape and identity finds recognition. Therefore, in a society governed by law, the accessibility of language assumes constitutional significance.

4. In light of the foregoing reflection, which underscores the fundamental significance of language as the most powerful medium of comprehension and meaningful participation, we shall now proceed to examine the present controversy.

5. The appellants have approached this Court by way of the instant appeal, under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, 1950¹[Hereinafter, referred to as “Constitution”.], for assailing the impugned final order dated 27th November, 2024 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur²[Hereinafter, referred to as “High Court”.] in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5294 of 2021 whereby the High Court dismissed the Public Interest Litigation filed by the appellants.

6. The appellants, by way of the aforesaid Public Interest Litigation, had approached the High Court seeking a direction to the respondents to include the Rajasthani language in the examination syllabus for recruitment to the post of Teacher, Grade-III, Level-I and Level-II, under the Rajasthan Eligibility Examination for Teachers, 2021³[Hereinafter, referred to as “REET, 2021”.]. The appellants also sought a direction to the respondents to impart education to children in the Rajasthani language or the relevant local language.

7. The High Court dismissed the petition on the premise that a writ of mandamus can be issued only upon the petitioners/appellants establishing an enforceable legal right and demonstrating a corresponding failure on the part of the State authorities to discharge a statutory duty.

8. Being aggrieved, the appellants are before this Court by way of the present appeal by special leave.

9. Before adverting to the merits of the controversy, it would be apposite to briefly take note of certain foundational aspects pertaining to the role and significance of language, particularly in the context of education and constitutional guarantees, so as to place the issues arising in the present appeal in their true and wholesome perspective.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

10. Language has existed in one form or other since times immemorial. It has served as the enduring thread through which successive generations have transmitted culture, knowledge, and values from one generation to the next.

11. The Constituent Assembly was deeply conscious of the pivotal role that language plays in shaping the unity and identity of a nation. The debates of the Assembly reflect an acute awareness of the unifying potential of language and its capacity to bind together the diverse cultural fabric of India, particularly in the