State of Karnataka and anr Vs Associated Management of (Government Recognized un-aided English medium) Primary and secondary school and others.)2014

Author: Sushma Brungi

1. FACTS OF THE CASE:

1. The Respondent is registered Association recognised as unaided English medium school in the state of Karnataka.
2. On 19/06/1989 State issued an order, making the Kannada language as a mandatory first language for the students and other students can who are not aware of Kannada can choose Kannada as second language.
3. In 1994 same order was challenged by the English Medium Parents association vs Karnataka and others. and court did not interfere in this regard by upholding the previous order.
4. On date 29/04/1994, state has decided to revise its policy by considering the difficulty of converting the English medium schools to Kannada medium schools and gave an instruction from 1989 and gave an order on 22/04/1994 indicating that the language policy should be followed in the state from the academic year 1994- 1995.
5. As per the order stated by the court it says that from classes 1^st to 4^th in all schools recognised by the state government shall be other the mother tongue or Kannada from the 1994-1995.
6. It was also stated that to close down all the in authorised schools which were not following the rules.
7. Then effected by the order gave by the court as above said writ petitions has been filed by the religious minorities, religious denominations and parents associations petition number 14363 of 1994.
8. They challenged the constitutional validity of article 19(1)(a), 21, 29(2) and 30(1) of the constitution.
9. The high court of Karnataka quashed the same order, ruled that it has violated the fundamental rights of unaided institutions. Hence, they filed this appeal before the Supreme Court.

2. ISSUES RAISED: 
   1. Whether the state has the authority to mandate a regional language at the primary level?
   2. Does the language come under the article 19 (1) a or not?
   3. Interpretation of the Article 350 A of the constitution.
3. LEGAL PRINCIPLES APPLIED:
   1. Article 19 (1) (a) of the constitution: This article refers and gives its citizens freedom of speech and expression, including choosing the language
   2. Article 29(1) and 30(1) of constitution: It protects the rights of the linguistic, cultural and minority educational rights wherever it gets effected.
   3. Article 350 A: It provides the primary and secondary school students to choose the mother tongue as a primary language.
4. ARGUMENTS:

Appellants: (State)

1. The learned counsel appearing for the state has stated that according to the provincial education ministers conference held in August 194o has been approved by the government of India and now serves as a guide for the state governments in making arrangements for the education of the school going children in the respective states.
2. He also stated that after the report of the state reorganisation commission, 1955, Article 350A has been introduced in the constitution providing that it shall be the nervous of every state and of every local authority within the state to provide adequate facilities for instruction in the mother tongue at the primary stage of education of children belonging to linguistic minority group. 
3. He has taken the precedent reference of Gujarat University & anr Vs Shri Krishna Ranganath Mudholkar and Ors [AIR1963 SC 703]- state legislature has the regulatory power to legislate an medium of instruction in institutions of primary or secondary education.

Respondents: (School)

1. It stated that by imposing an order it takes the freedom of choosing a language as enumerated in the constitution.
2. The privately unaided schools have the absolute rights because they are not getting any funds from the government.
3. JUDGEMENT: 

 The constitution bench has held that the medium of instruction has a direct bearing or impact on the determination of standards in institutions of higher education, the legislative power can be exercised by the union to prescribe a medium of instruction in subjects of higher education for which only English books are available and which can only be taught in English.

In the present case, it has given importance to the constitution and giving the respect to the article of constitution Article 19 (1) (a) It further stated that right to choose a language is not decided by any government order or through decrees. The judgement put an emphasis on the precedent named T.M.A pai foundation vs State of Karnataka (2002)- which has protected the autonomy of unaided private education institutions from state excessive control. It also clarified that no one has right to force the children to choose a language. It has not taken section 29 consideration of the Right to education act, because it violates the fundamental rights, and it does only the work as guidelines for curriculum and it does not empower state governments to force private unaided schools to change their primary instruction as a compulsory condition for statutory recognition or compliance.

6. LEGAL COMMENTARY:

The constitution is the supreme rule book when it comes to protect and enforcement rights of the people. The judicial body which provided the judgement, by preserving the constitutionalism is credible. Part 3 of the constitution fundamental rights are conditional in nature and the state can take them away in any emergency situation. But as regard this case, putting emphasis on the article 19 and article 350 A and protected the rights of the students, by keeping the necessity an unbiased judgement and respect over the student education as well as protected the culturalism.