Public Interest Litigation must serve public interest, not individual grievances, and mandamus cannot compel policy decisions.

Order on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

07.07 . 2025

1. Heard Dr. Sachin Ashok Kale, petitioner in person as well as Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondents.

2. By way of this writ petition styled as ‘Public Interest Litigation’, the petitioner has prayed for following relief:-

“10.1 That, considers and admit this Petition as “Pro bono Publico”, in the interest of justice.

10.2 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the writ petition & issue appropriate instruct Respondent to identify the linguistic minority’s languages & Communities, especially & including “Marathi languages” in state in-line with established fact in this petition.

10.3 That, The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ/order/directing Respondent to nofify “Marathi” as Linguistic Minorities language in state & thereafter, declare Marathi Speaking Communities as linguistic minority community in state.

10.4 Any other relief/relief’s which may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be allowed.”

3. Dr. Sachin Ashok Kale, the petitioner in person submits that as per Central Government Notification SO No. 816(E), F No. 1/11/93- MC (D) dated 23.10.1993, Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (c) of Section 2 of the National Commission for Minorities Act, 1992 (19 of 1992), the Central Government notified the following communities as "the Minority communities" for the purposes of the said Act, namely: 1. Muslims 2. Christians 3. Sikhs 4. Buddhists 5. Zoroastrians (Parsis). Further, Sr. No. 217 dated 27.01.2014, Jain Community has also been notified as Minority community. He further submits that Article 29 of Constitution of India has provided protection to both Linguistic & religious minorities, while Article 350A provides that there shall be a specific officer for linguistic minorities. This indicates that minorities are classified on the basis of Religion and Language.

4. It has been contended by Dr. Kale that in case of T.M.A. Pai Foundation and Others v. State of Karnataka and Others passed in WPC No.317/1993 decided on 31.10.2002, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has clarified that linguistic and religious minorities are covered by the expression "minority” under Article 30 of the Constitution of India. Since reorganization of the States in India has been on linguistic lines, therefore, for the purpose of determining the minority, the unit will be the State and not the whole of India. Thus, religious and linguistic minorities, who have been put at par in Article 30, have to be considered State-wise. Further, the State has notified in Chhattisgarh Rajya Minorities Commission (Amendment) Act 2013 (31 of 2013) dated 13.08.2013 under in Section 2(C) which states that "Minority" for the purpose of this Act means,-

(i) a Community notified as such by the Central Government for the purpose of National Commission for Minorities Act, 1992 (No. 19 of 1992), or

(ii) a Community notified as such by the State Government.

5. It has been further contended by Dr. Kale that in view of the guidelines laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court, the State of Karnataka has notified Urdu, Marathi, Hindi and Tulu in State as minority speaking language as also declared Jews as linguistic spoken minorities in State in the year 2016. Likewise, State of Tamil Nadu has declared Telgu, Kannad, Malyalam Urdu as minorities languages in the State and State of Madhya Pradesh also declared Urdu, Marathi and Sindhi as ‘minorities’ languages. It has been submitted that as per article published in "Times of India" News Paper,