# Sobhraf Odharmal v. State of Rajasthan

- **Citation:** [1963] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 112
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1963
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/sobhraf-odharmal-v-state-of-rajasthan-2700
- **Pages:** 61

## Headnote

1962
Sobhraf Odharmal
v.
State of Rajasthan
Shah, J.
1962
September 21.
112 SUPRE,ME COURT REPORTS [1963] SUPP.
are set out in the order dated May 3/4, 1962 were
lawfully cancelled. The objectors had since cancellation of their permits no fundamental right which
could be infringed by the State Government plying its
vehicles with or without permits issued by the Regional
Transport Authority under s.42( 1) of the Motor
Vehicles Act.
The appeal and the writ petition therefore fail
and are dismissed with costs. There will be one
hearing· fee.
Appeal and writ petition dismissed.
THE GUJARAT UNIVERSITY, AHMEDABAD
v.
KRISHNA RANGANATH MUDHOLKAR
AND OTHERS
(B. P. SINHA c. ]., jAFER IMAM, K. SUBBA RAO,
K. N. WANCHOO, J. c. SH.AH AND
N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR, lJ.)
University Education-F·ixation of exclusive ""'4ium of
mstruction-Legislative Competence of State Legislature-Constitution of India, Art. 254 (1),
Seventh Schedule, List I,
Entry 66, List II, Entry lr---Gujarat Univer8ity Act, 1949
(Bom. 56 of 1949) as amended by Act 4 of 1961, 88. 4, 18, 20,
22, 38A-Univer8ity Statutes, 207, 208 209.
The second respondent joined the First Year Arts Class
of the St. Xavier's College, affiliated to the Gujarat University,
where instruction was imparted through the medium of English
and after successfully completing that course sought admission
to the cla~ses preparing for the Intermediate Arts Examination of the University through the medium of English.
The
Principal of the college informed him that in view of the
provisions of the Gujarat University Act, 1949, and statutes 267,
208 and 209 framed by the Senate of the University, as amended
in J 961, . he could not be admitted without the "11\Clion of the
University The first respondent (father of the second respondent)
1\
I S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
113
..
moved the Vice-Chancellor but sanction was refused. The
respondents then moved the High Court under Art. 226 of the
Constitution for v.rrits requiring the university and the Principal
of the College not to enforce the provisions of ss. 4 (27) 18 (1)
(XIV) and 38 A of the Gujarat University Act and Statutes 207,
208, 209 and that Court holding in favour of the respondents
issued the writs prayed for.
The State and the University filed
separate appeals to this Court. It was contended on behalf of
the University that s. 4 of the Act conferred power on the
University to impose Gujarati or Hindi as the exclusive medium
of instruction and
examination, and that
the impugned
provisions were valid. The questions for deternlination were,
(1) whether the Gujarat University had the power under the
Act to prescribe Gujarati or Hindi or both as exclusive 1nedium
or media of instruction and examination, (2) whether legislation
authorising the University to impose such 1nedia was constitutionally valid in view of Entry 66 of list I of the Seventh Schedule
to the Constitution.
Held,
(Per Sinha, C. J., Imam, Wanchoo, Shah and
Ayyangar,JJ.), that neither under the Gujarat Uniyersity Act,'
1949, as originally enacted nor as amended by Act 4of1961,
was power conferred on the University to impose Gujarati or
Hindi or both as exclusive medium or media of instruction or
examination and since no power \Vas conferred on the University
the Senate could exercise no such power.
Clause (27) of s. 4 of the Act, which alone expressly dealt
with the subject of medium of instruction, properly construed,
did not indicate that the Legislature was therein indirectly
dealing with the subject of prescribing an exclusive medium of
instruction.
From the use of the word "Promote" read in the
context of the indefinite article "a", it was clear that the Univer.
sity was not empowered to impose Gujarati or Hindi as exclusive
medium of instruction and examination.
Use of the definite
article "the" in the proviso in relation to English as the medium
of instruction supported this view.
Since cl. (27) was not intended to authorise the imposition
of Gujarati or Hindi or both as exclusive m

## Text

_Characters 0–39,399 of 124,579. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39399 for what follows._

1962
Sobhraf Odharmal
v.
State of Rajasthan
Shah, J.
1962
September 21.
112 SUPRE,ME COURT REPORTS [1963] SUPP.
are set out in the order dated May 3/4, 1962 were
lawfully cancelled. The objectors had since cancellation of their permits no fundamental right which
could be infringed by the State Government plying its
vehicles with or without permits issued by the Regional
Transport Authority under s.42( 1) of the Motor
Vehicles Act.
The appeal and the writ petition therefore fail
and are dismissed with costs. There will be one
hearing· fee.
Appeal and writ petition dismissed.
THE GUJARAT UNIVERSITY, AHMEDABAD
v.
KRISHNA RANGANATH MUDHOLKAR
AND OTHERS
(B. P. SINHA c. ]., jAFER IMAM, K. SUBBA RAO,
K. N. WANCHOO, J. c. SH.AH AND
N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR, lJ.)
University Education-F·ixation of exclusive ""'4ium of
mstruction-Legislative Competence of State Legislature-Constitution of India, Art. 254 (1),
Seventh Schedule, List I,
Entry 66, List II, Entry lr---Gujarat Univer8ity Act, 1949
(Bom. 56 of 1949) as amended by Act 4 of 1961, 88. 4, 18, 20,
22, 38A-Univer8ity Statutes, 207, 208 209.
The second respondent joined the First Year Arts Class
of the St. Xavier's College, affiliated to the Gujarat University,
where instruction was imparted through the medium of English
and after successfully completing that course sought admission
to the cla~ses preparing for the Intermediate Arts Examination of the University through the medium of English.
The
Principal of the college informed him that in view of the
provisions of the Gujarat University Act, 1949, and statutes 267,
208 and 209 framed by the Senate of the University, as amended
in J 961, . he could not be admitted without the "11\Clion of the
University The first respondent (father of the second respondent)
1\
I S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
113
..
moved the Vice-Chancellor but sanction was refused. The
respondents then moved the High Court under Art. 226 of the
Constitution for v.rrits requiring the university and the Principal
of the College not to enforce the provisions of ss. 4 (27) 18 (1)
(XIV) and 38 A of the Gujarat University Act and Statutes 207,
208, 209 and that Court holding in favour of the respondents
issued the writs prayed for.
The State and the University filed
separate appeals to this Court. It was contended on behalf of
the University that s. 4 of the Act conferred power on the
University to impose Gujarati or Hindi as the exclusive medium
of instruction and
examination, and that
the impugned
provisions were valid. The questions for deternlination were,
(1) whether the Gujarat University had the power under the
Act to prescribe Gujarati or Hindi or both as exclusive 1nedium
or media of instruction and examination, (2) whether legislation
authorising the University to impose such 1nedia was constitutionally valid in view of Entry 66 of list I of the Seventh Schedule
to the Constitution.
Held,
(Per Sinha, C. J., Imam, Wanchoo, Shah and
Ayyangar,JJ.), that neither under the Gujarat Uniyersity Act,'
1949, as originally enacted nor as amended by Act 4of1961,
was power conferred on the University to impose Gujarati or
Hindi or both as exclusive medium or media of instruction or
examination and since no power \Vas conferred on the University
the Senate could exercise no such power.
Clause (27) of s. 4 of the Act, which alone expressly dealt
with the subject of medium of instruction, properly construed,
did not indicate that the Legislature was therein indirectly
dealing with the subject of prescribing an exclusive medium of
instruction.
From the use of the word "Promote" read in the
context of the indefinite article "a", it was clear that the Univer.
sity was not empowered to impose Gujarati or Hindi as exclusive
medium of instruction and examination.
Use of the definite
article "the" in the proviso in relation to English as the medium
of instruction supported this view.
Since cl. (27) was not intended to authorise the imposition
of Gujarati or Hindi or both as exclusive medium or media,
cl. (28) of s. 4 could not also be held to do so.
Nor did ss. 18,
20, 22 or any other section of the Act confer that authority.
J-\ corporation has ordinarily an implied power to carry
out its objects; but that rule could not by itself, in the absence
of express provisions in the Act, authorise the University to ·
impose an oxclusive 1nedium of instn1ction.
The letter dated Angus! 7, 1949, addressed by the Government of India to the Universities and ProvincLtl G·Jvernments
1962
Gujarat University
Ahmedabad
v.
Krishna Rangarullh
A1udholkar
J
1962
Gujarat Unilldrsity,
Ahmttfabd
v.
Krishna Rangan"th
Mudholkar
114 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963) SUPP
requesting them to gradually replace English as the medium
of instruction· at the University stage by the regional or State
language cou] d not affect the interpretation of the plain language
of the Act.
Nor could the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Act,
which proposed to empower the University to adopt Gujarati or
the national language as the medium of instruction, justify the
court in assuming that the proposal \Vas carried out, the State ..
ment of Objects and ·Reasons must be ignored in interpreting
the statute.
It was not correct to 3ay that legislation prescribing
the medium or media of instruction in higher education and
other instructions must fall within Item l l of List II of the
Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. The use of the expression "subject to" in that Item clearly indicates that legislation
in respect of matters excluded by that Item cannot be undertaken by the, State Legislature.
Hingir-Rampur Coal
Co. v. State
of Orissa, (196\]
I S.C.R. 537, referred to.
I tern 11 of List II and Item 66 of List I must be
harmoniously construed and where they overlap the power
conferred by Item 66 on the Parliament must prevail over the
power conferred on the Stale Legislatures by Item 11.
The test of the validity of a State Legislation on
University education or education in Technical and Scientific
Iii.stitutions not covered by Entry 64 of List I, would be whether
•uch legislation impinges "11 the field reserved for the Uriion
by Item 66 of List I and prejudicially affects coordination and
determination of standards, and not the existence of some
definite Union Legislation to that end. If there he one, that
would prevail over the State-legislation under Art. 254(1) of
the Constitution. Even if there is no such legislation, State law
trenching upon the Union field must still be invalid.
Item 66 of List I cannot be narrowly construed and the
power it confers extends to all ancillary or subsidiary matters
which can be fairly and reasonably comprehended by it, such
as disparities resulting from the adoption of a regional medium
of instruction resultin(( in a falling of standards in higher
education.
The, word 'co-ordination' does not merely mean
evaluation but also harmonising relationship for concerted
action. . The power under this Item is absolute and not conditioned by the existence of a state of emergency or unequal
standards calling for its exercise.
Since medium of instruction is not an item ill the legislative Lists, it necessarily falls within Item 11 of List II, at
)
1 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
115
also within items 63 to 66 of List I and in so far as it is a
necessary incident of the power under Item 66 it must be deemed
to be excluded from Item 11 of List II.
If a legislation imposing a regional language or Hindi
as the exclusive medium of instruction is likely to result in
lowering of standards, it must necessarily fall within Item 66
of List I and be excluded to that extent from Item 11 of
List II.
Per Subba Rao, J.-Under what entry a legislation falls
must be decided by the scope and effect of the legislation and
by its pith and substance. Case-law has laid down various
tests to get at the core of the legislation but no case has yet
held that even if the pith and substance of a legislation falls
within one entry, it is liable to be struck down on the ground
that it may possibly come into conflict with another by a
co-ordinate legislature under another entry. If the impact of a
State law on a Central subject has the effect of wiping out or
a bridging the Central field, then the State law may be held to
be a colourable exercise of power and that in pith and substance
it falls not under the State entry but under the Union entry.
The case-law does not, hoV1rever,
recognise an independent
principle of direct impact outside the doctrine of pith and
substance.
Prafulla Kumar v. Bank of Commerce, Khulna, A.I.R.
1947 P.C. 60, State of Bombay v. F. N. Balsara, [1951] S.C.R.
682, A. S. Kmhna v. Stn,te of Madras,
(1957) S.C.R. 399,
Union Colliery Co. of British Columbia Ltd. v. Bryden [1899)
A.C. 580, Bank of Toronto v. Lambe, [1882112 A.O. 515 and
Atlorney General for Alberta v. Attorney General for Canada,
[I 939) A.C. l! 7, discussed.
The well-settled rules of interpretation arc that the widest
amplitude should be given to the language of the Entries and
when they overlap this Court should reconcile and harmonise
them.
So construed, it was clear that mediun1 of instruction
was included in Entry I I of List II and not in Entry 66 of List
1 \vhich relates to "co-ordination" and "determination of
standards". The State legislature could, therefore, make a law
empowering the University to prescribe a regional language as
the exclusive medium of instruction. The Gujarat University
Act wa' thus within Entrv I I and did not affect the Union
Entry which does not neceSsarily involve a particular medium
of instruction.
Calcu.tta (',as Co. v. The State of West Bengal (I 962)
Supp. 3 S. C. R. I applied.
1962
Gujarat University,
Ahmtdabad
v.
Krishna Ranganath
Mudholkar
1962
Gujarc! University,
Ahm1dabad
v.
Krishna Rar1ganalh
Mwiholkar
116 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963).SUPP.
When an act confers a power on a corporation such as
the University, it impliedly grants the power of doing all acts
which are essentially acce5sary for exercisiM that power. The
provisions of the Act leave no manner~ of doubt that the
University had the implied power to prescribe for the purposes
of higher education a number of rr1edia or instructions or even
a sol.e and exclusive medium. That power is implicit in cl. (I)
of •A and the other clauses thereof. Clause (27) did not curtail
that power but conferred an additional power, to promote the
study of Gujarati or Hindi and the use of them as medium of
instruction aiid examination; the proviso to it also corresponds
with the scheme.
CIVIL APPELLATEJURISDICTION: Civil Appeals
Nos. 234 and 262 of 1962.
Appeals from the judgment and order dated
January 24, 1962, of the Gujarat High Court in
Special Civil Application No. 624 of 1961.
J. C. Bhatt, H.K. Thakore and V. J. Merohand,
for the appellants (in C.A. No.
234/62) and
respondents Nos. 2. and 3 (in C.A. No. 262/62).
N. A. Palkhivala,
C. T.
Daru,
J. B.
Dadachanji, 0. 0. Mathur and Ravinder Narain, for
the respondent No. 1 (in both the appeals.)
M. C.
Setalvad, Attorney-General of India
J, M. Thakore, Advocate-General for the State of
Gujarat, M. G. Doshit and R. H. Dhebar, for the
respondent No. 3 (in C.A. No. 234/62) and the appe·
Hant (in C. A. No. 262 of 1962).
I. M. Nanavati and G. Gopalakrishna, for the
intervener (in C.A. No. 234/62).
Frank Anthony, Charanjit
Talwar, P. C.
Agarwala, J.B. Dad.achanji, 0. 0. Mathur and
Ravinder Narain, for Intervener No. 2 (in both \Pe
appeals).
1962.
September 21. The Judgment of Sinha,
C. J., Imam, Wanchoo, Shah and AyYangar, JJ.,
was delivered by Shah, J., Subba Rao, J. delivered a
separate Judgment.
1 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
117
SHAH, J.-Shrikant son of
Shri Krishna
Madholkar 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 :Miarch, 1961, Shrikant applied for
admission to the 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 Statutes
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 instrnctions were imparted through
the medium of English. Shri Krishna, father of
Shrikant then moved the Vice-Chancellor of the
University for sanction to permit Shrikan• 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.
A petition was then filed by Shri Krishna
Madholkar 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 Statutes 207, 208 and 209
as void and inoperative and to forbear from acting
1962
Gujarat University,
A.hmedabad
v.
Krishna Ranganath
Mudholkar
Shah, J,
1962
Gujarat Universil.J,
Ahmedabad
v.
Krishna Ranga11ath
Mudlwlkar
Sh'lh, J.
-
118 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963) SUPP.
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.
The High Court of Gujarat by qrder 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.
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 Devanagri 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 Hin.di as one of
the medium of instruction and examination
and not as the only medium of instruction
1 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
119
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 encroachment 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 the Statutes 207 and 209
made thereunder arc null and void ; and
( 4)
·~ven if on a true construe lion of s. 4(27)
and other provisions of the Act, the University is authorised to prescribe a particular language or languages as medium or
media of instruction and examination for
affiliated colleges and to prohibit the us•: of
English as a medium of instruction and
examination in afliliated colleges,
the
provisions authorising the imposition of
exclusive media and the Statutes and circulars issued in pursuance thereof arc void
and infringing Articles 2!) ( 1) and 30 ( 1)
of the Constitution.
We have declined to hear arguments about the
alleged infringement of fundamental rights under
Articles 29 ( l) and :lo ( l) by the Act assuming as it
authorises imposition of Gujarati or Hindi as an
exclusive medium of instruction, for, in our view, the
petition suffers from a singular lack of pleading in
support of that case, and even the St. Xavier's College
authorities who had at one stage adopted a noncontentious attitude but later supported the case of
the petitioner, did not choose to place evidence on
the record which would justify the Court in entering
upon an investigation of this plea of far reaching
importance.
Manifestly, the decision of the question
whether such legislation infringes Arts. 29 ( l) and
30(1) depends upon proof of several facts such as
existence of a distinct language, script or culture of a
1962
Gujarat Uniuersily
Ahmedabad ·
v.
Krishna Ranganat.
Mudholkar
Shah,/.
..
1962
;ujarat University,
Ahmedilhad
v.
;rishnw Ranganath
Mudholkar
Shah) J.
...
120 SUPREl.vlE COURT REPORTS [1963] SUPP.
section of citizens for whom the St. Xavier's College
caters or the existence of a minority based on religion
or language having been by the enactment of the
impugned legislation obstructed or likely to be obstructed in the exercise of its rights to establish and
administer educational institutions of its choice. We,
therefore, express no opinion on the question whether
the provisions of the Act and the Statutes and circulars issued infringe any fundamental rights of any
section of citizens or any minority religious or
linguistic.
We must, however, make it clear that we
refuse to decide the question not because the petitioner
had no right to maintain the petition under Art. 226
of the Constitution as contended by the University
and the State of Gujarat, but because of the paucity
of pleading and evidence on the record.
Two substantial questions survive for determination-(l) whether under the Gujarat University
Act, 1949, it is open to the University to prescribe
Gujarati or Hindi or both as an exclusive medium or
media of instruction and examination in the affiliated
colleges, and (2) whether legislation authorising the
University to impose such media would infringe Entry
66 of List I, Seventh Schedule to the Constitution.
St. Xavier's College was affiliated to the
University of Bombay under Bombay Act 4 of 1921;l.
The Legislature of the Province of Bombay en acted
the G1tjarat University Act, 1949, to establish and
incorporate a teaching and affiliating University "as
a measure of decentralization and re-organisation" of
University education in the province. Bys. 5(3) of
the Act, fmm the prescribed date all educational institutions admitted to the privileges of the University of
Bombay and situate within the University area of
Gujarat were deemed to be admitted to the privileges
of the University of Gujarat. Section 3 incorporated
by the University with perpetual succession and a
common seal. Section 4 of the Act enacted a provision
which is not normally found in similar Acts constituting
1 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
121
Universities. By that section various
powers
of
the University were
enumerated. These powers
were made exercisable by diverse authorities of the
University set out in s. 15. We are concerned in these
appeals with the Senate, the Syndicate and the
Academic Council. Some of the powers conferred by
s. 4 were made exercisable by s. 18 by the Senate.
The Senate was by that section authorised, subject to
conditions as may be prescribed by or under the
provisions of the Act, to exercise the powers and to
perform the duties as set out in sub-s. ( 1 ). By s. 20
certain powers of the University were made exercisable
by the Syndicate, and by s. 22, the Academic Council
was invested with the control and general regulation
of, and was made resporisible for, the maintenance of
standards of teaching and examinations of the University and was authorised to exercise certain powers
of the University. The powers and the duties of the
Senate are to be exercised and performed by the promulgation of Statutes, of the Syndicate by Ordinances
and of the Academic Council by Regulations. In
1954, the Gujarat University framed certain Regulations dealing with the media of instruction. They are
Statutes 207, 208 and 209. Statute 207 provided :-
( 1) Gujarati shall be medium of Instruction and
Examination.
(2) Notwithstanding anything in clause ( 1)
above, English shall continue to be the
medium of instruction and examination for
a period not exceeding ten years from the
date on which section 3 of the Gujarat
University Act comes into force, except as
prescribed from time to time by Statutes.
(3) Notwithstanding anything in clause (1)
above, it is hereby provided that nonGujarati students and teachers will have the
option, the former for their examination
and the latter for their teaching work, to
use Hindi as themedium, if they so desire.
1962
Gujarat Unil.iersity
AhmeiabaJ
v.
K rislma Rant an ct/,
Mutllwlkar
SiuJh, J.
1962
iujarat University,
Ahmedabad
v.
-tri'.ikna Ranganath
Mudholkar
Shah, J;
122 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963}SUPP.
(4)
The Syndicate will regulate this by making
suitable Ordinances in this behalf, if, as
and when necessary.
Notwithstanding anything in (1), (2), (3)
above, the medium of examination and
instruction for modern Indian Languages
and English may be the respective languages.
Statute 208 provided that the medium of instruction
and examination in all subjects from June, 1955, in
First Year Arts, First Year Science and First Year
Commerce in all subjects and from June, 1956, in
Inter Arts, Inter Science, Inter Commerce and First
Year Science (Agri.) shall cease to be English and
shall be as laid down in Statute 207(1).
This Statute
further provided that a student or a teacher who feels
that he cannot "use Gujarati or Hindi tolerably well",
would be permitted the use of English in examination
and instruction respectiveiy up to November, 1960,
(which according to the academic year would mean
June, 1961) in one or more subjects. Statute 209 is
to the same effect enumerating therein the permitted
use of English for the B.A., B.Sc., and other examinations.
After the constitution of a separate State of
Gujarat, Act 4 of 1961 was enacted by the Gujarat
State Legislature. By that Act·the proviso to s. 4(27)
was amended so as to extend the use of English as
the medium of instruction beyond the period originally
contemplated and s. 38A which imposed an obligation
upon all affiliated colleges and recognised institutions to comply with the provisions relating to the
media of instruction was enacted. It was provided by
s. 38A(2) that if an affiliated college or recognised institution contravenes the provisions of the Act, Rules,
Ordinances & Regulations in respect of media of
instruction the rights conferred on such institution or
college shall stand withdrawn from the date of the
contravention and that the college or institution shall
cease to be affiliated college or recognised institution
jl
I
1 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
123
for the purpose of the Act.
The Senate of the University thereafter amended Statutes 207 and 209.
Material part of Statute 207 as amended is as
follows:-
( 1) Gujarati shall be the medium of instruction
and examination :
Notwithstanding anything contained in subitem (I) above, Hindi will be permitted as an
alternative medium of instruction and examination in the following faculties :
(i)
Faculty of Medicine,
(ii)
Faculty of Technology including Engineering, and
(iii)
Faculty of Law ; and
(iv) in
all faculties
for post-graduate
studies ;
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained m
clause (I) above, English may continue to
be the medium of instruction and examination for such period and in respect
of such subjects and courses of studies as
may, from time to time, be prescribed by
the Statutes under sec. 4(27) of the Gujarat
University Act for the time being in force.
( 3) Notwithstanding anything contained in
clause (I) above, it is hereby provided that
students and teachers, whose mother-tongue
is not Gujarati will have the option, the
former for their examination and the latter
for their instruction to use Hindi as the
medium, if they so desire.
(4) Notwithstanding anything
contained in
clauses (I) & (3) above, it is hereby provided that the affiliated Colleges, recognised
Institutions and University Departments, as
the case may be, will have the option to
1962
Gujarat U11iversitv,
Ahmedabad
v.
Krirhna Ranganaih
Afudholkar
Shah, J.
1962
Gujarat Universitp,
Ahmedah•d
v.
Krishna Ranganath
Mudho/kcr
Shah, J.
124 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963) SUPP.
use, for one or more subjects, Hindi as a
medium of instruction and examination for
students
whose
mother-tongue is not
Gujarati.
(5) Notwithstanding anything in clauses (1), (2),
(3) and ( 4) above, the medium of examination and instruction for modern Indian
languages and English may be the respective
languages.
·
Statute 209 as amended provides that the medium of
instruction and examination in all subjects in the
examinations enumerated therein shall cease to be
English and shall be as laid down in Statute 207 as.
amended with effect from the years mentioned against
the respective examinations.
The Registrar of the University thereafter issued
a Circular on June 22, 1961, addressed to Principals
of Affiliated Colleges stating that the Vice-Chancellor
in exercise of the powers vested in him under
s. 11(4)(a) of the Act was pleased to direct that-
(i) Only those students who have done their
Secondary education through the medium
of English and who have further continued
their studies in First Year (Pre-University)
Arts Class in the year 1960-61 through
English, shall be permitted to continue to
use English as the medium of their examination in the Intermediate Arts Class for
one year i.e. in the year 1961-62, and
(ii) The Colleges be permitted to make arrangements for giving instructions to students
mentioned in (i) above through the medium
of English for only one year i.e. during the
academic year 1961-62, and
(iii) That the Principals shall satisfy themselves
that only such students as mentioned in (i)
I
;
1 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
125
above are permitted to avail themselves of
the concession mentioned therein.
Shrikant had not app~ared at the S.S.C. Examination
in the medium of English and under the first clause
of the circular he could not be j)ermitted by the
Principal of the St. Xavier's College to continue to
use English as the medium of instruction in the
Intermediate Arts class: if the Principal permitted
Shrikant to do so the College would be exposed to
the penalties prescribed by s. 38A.
The petitioner challenged the authority of the
University to impose Gujarati or Hindi as the exclusive medium of instruction under the powers conferred
by the Gujarat University Act, 1949, as amended by
Act 4 of 1961. The University contended that authority in that behalf was expressly conferred under
diverse clauses of s. 4, and it being the duty of the
Senate to exercise that power under s. lS(XIV), Statutes 207 and 209 were lawfully promulgated. In any
event, it was submitted that the University being a Corporation invested with control over higher education
for the area in which it functions such a power must be
deemed to be necessarily implied.
In considering whether power to impose Gujarati
or Hindi or both as exclusive medium or media of
instruction is conferred upon the University by the
Gujarat University Act,
1949, clauses (l), (2), (7),
(8), (10), (14), (27), and (28) ofs. 4 only need be
ronsidered. By cl. (1) power is conferred upon the
University "to provide for instruction, teaching and
training in such branches of learning and courses of
study as it may think fit to make provision for rese3.!'ch
and dissemination of knowledge". We do not, having
regard to the phraseology used by the
Le_gisla~e,
agree with the High Court that this power IS ~tnc
ted in its exercise to institutions set up by the University and d0es not extend to affiliated colleges.
T~e
language used in the clause. does n~t warrant this
l'C9triction. But we agree with the High Court that
1962
Gujarat Uniwrsi~
A/und«h•d
v.
Krishru1 Ro.ntan•
Mudholktir
Shilh, J.
1962
Cujarct University,
Ahmedabad
v.
rrislma Ranganath
Mudholkar
Shah, J.
126 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963] SUPP.
the power conferred by cl. (1) docs not relate primarily to the medium of instruction but to the syllabi
in diverse branches of learning and courses of study.
The clause confers authority upon the University to
direct that instruction, teaching and training be imparted in different branches of learning and courses of
study as the University thinks fit, but not to prescribe
an exclusive medium in which instruction in the
branches of learning and courses of study is to be
imparted. Clause (2) which authorises the University
"to make such provision as would enable affiliated
colleges and
recognised institutions to undertake
specialisation of studies", has no direct bearing on the
subject of an exclusive medium of instruction. Nor
does cl. (7) which enables the University "to lay down
the courses of instruction for various examinations"
authorise the University to prescribe an exclusive
medium of instruction. Clause (8) which confers
power "to guide the teaching in colleges or recognised
institutions" has no bearing on the power to prescribe
an exclusive medium. Power to designate branches
of learning, or courses of study in which instruction
is to be imparted, or power to take steps to facilitate
specialized studies, or to guide teaching in institutions
affiliated to or recognised by the University undoubtedly includes the power to indicate the medium
through which instructions were at the date of the Act
normally imparted, but that power by itself does not
include, in the absence of a provision express or by
clear implication, power to compel instruction through
an exclusive medium. Clause ( 10) provides that the
University shall have the power "to hold examinations and confer degrees, titles, diplomas and other
academic distinctions on persons who -(a) have pursued approved COW'SCS of study in the University or
in an affiliated college unless exempted therefrom in
the manner p1'escribed by the Statutes, Ordinances
and Regulations and have passed the examination
prescribed by the University, or (b) have carried on
research under conditions prescribed by the Ordinances
1 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
127
and Regulations". Counsel for the University contended that by cl. lO(a), the University had the authority to approve courses of study in the manner prescribed by the Statutes, Ordinances and Regulations
and as power was given by s. 18 (XIV) to the Senate
to frame Statutes providing either Gujarati or Hindi
or both as medium or media of instruction, the power
of the University to impose an exclusive medium of
its choice was expressly entrusted to the University.
But the argument proceeded upon an incorrect reading
of the section. The provision does not by itself
empower the University to prescribe the use of any
exclusive medium of instruction and examination.
The University is thereby authorised to confer degrees
or academic distinctio;ms upon persons who have
pursued approved courses of study and have passed
the examination prescribed by the University. Power
is also reserved to the University to confer degrees or
academic distinctions upon persons who have not
pursued the courses prescribed by the University if
exemption in that behalf is prescribed by the Statutes,
Ordinances or Regulations. The expression "in the
manner" prescribed by the Statute, Ordinance or
Regulation has no reference to the class of persons
who have pursued approved courses of study in the
University or in an affiliated college, but qualifies
the expression "unless exempted therefrom" immediately preceding. By the clause the University is
authorised to confer degrees, diplomas or distinctions
not only upon persons who have pursued the courses
of instruction prescribed and have passed the qualifying examination, but upon other persons as well who
have not pursued the courses of instruction but have
passed the prescribed examination, if exemption in
behalf is given by the Statutes. Ordinances or Regulations. The power under sub-cl. (a) of cl. (10) does not
carry with it the power to impose an exclusive medium
such as Gujarati or Hindi. By cl. (14) power among
others to take measures to ·ensure that proper standards
of instructions, teaching or training are maintained in
1962
Gujarat University,
Ahmulabad
v.
Krishna Ranganath
Mudholkar
Shah, J.
1962
Gujarat llniversity,
A.hmedabad
v.
Krishna Rangmiath
Mud!ltJlkar
Shah, J,
128 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963]SUPP.
the affiliated colleges and recognised institutions is
granted, and cl.(15) invests the University with power
to control and co-ordinate the activities of, and give
financial aid to affiliated colleges and recognised institutions, but not the power to provide for an exclusive
medium as claimed by the University. The Legislature
in cl.(27) has dealt with the subject of medium of
instructions and the other clauses on which reliance
is placed do not expressly deal with that topic. It
would be difficult then to hold that the Legislature
while providing in cl.(27) about the medium of
instruction was also dealing indirectly with the subject
of prescribing an exclusive medium of instruction,
when it made provisions relating to instruction, teaching and ,training in educational institutions or for
enabling those institutions to undertake specialized
studies or giving guidance in teaching in colleges, or
for providing for degrees or academic distinctions or
for taking measures ensuring proper standard of
instructions, teaching or training or the conduct of
activities.
Clause (27), before it was amended, by Act IV
of 1961, ran as follows :-
"to promote the development of the study of
Gujarati and Hindi in Devnagari script and the
use of Gujarati or Hindi in Devnagari script
or both as a medium of instruction and examination;
Provided that English may continue to be
the medium of instruction and examination in
such subjects and for such period not exceeding
,ten years from the date on which section 3
comes into force as may from time to time be
prescribed by the Statutes."
By the first paragraph of cl.( 27) power is confen-ed to
promote the development and use of Gujarati OI'
Hindi or both as a medium of instruction. That clause
is not in its expression, grammatically accurate. It
1 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS.
129
should, if it had been drafted in strict accordance
with the rules of grnmmar, have stated that the
University was invested with power to promote the
use of Gujarati or Hindi or both as a medium or
media of instruction and examination. The use of
the expression "promote" suggests that power was
conferred upon the University to encourage the study
of Gujarati and Hindi and their use as media of
instruction and examination: it does not imply that
power was given
to provide for exclusive use of
Gujarati or Hindi or both as a medium or media cif
instruction and examination and that inference is
strengthened by the indefinite article "a" before the
expression "medium of instruction''. The use of the
expression "a medium of instruction" clearly suggests
that Gujarati or Hindi was to be one of several
media of instruction, and steps were to be taken to
encourage the development of Gujarati and Hindi
and their
use
as media of instruction
and
examination. From the
use of the expression
"promote" read in the context of the indefinite article
"a" it is abundantly clear that power to impose
Gujarati or Hindi as the medium of instruction and
examination to the exclusion of other media was not
entI'ljsted to the University. It may be noticed that
if the expression "promote the use of Gujarati or
Hindi as a medium of instruction and examination"
was intended to mean "to promote the exclusive use
of Hindi or Gujarati", a similar interpretation would
have to be put on the use of the expression "to
promote the development of Gujarati and Hindi",
thereby ascribing to the Legislature an intention that
no other languages beside Gujarati and Hindi were
to be developed. Use in the proviso of the definite
article "the" in relation to English as medium
of instruction further supports this view. When the
Legislature enacted that English was to continue as
the medium of instruction and examination in
certain subjects it merely provided for continuance
of an existing and accepted exclusive medium of
1962
Gujarat University 1
Ahmedobad
v.
A~rishna Ranganat!i
Mudho/kar
Shah, J.
130 SUPREJ'.IE COURT REPORTS [1963] SUPP .
.!!!!__
instruction.
It is common ground that in the
Gujarat University, • University of Bombay the exclusive medium of
Ah":dabad
instruction was English, in the various affiliated
Kdshn" Ranganath
colleges in the region or area over which the Gujarat
Mudholkar
University acquired authority.
By the proviso to
Shah, 1.
cl.(27) of s.4 in the subjects to be prescribed under
the proviso the medium of instruction was to continue
to remain English.
By the operative part of cl.(27)
therefore the Legislature provided that use of
Gujarati or Hindi or both as a medium or media of
instruction was to be promoted thereby indicating
that Gujarati or Hindi or both was or were not to
be the exclusive medium or media but to be adopted
in addition to the accepted medium viz. English, for
instruction and examination, whereas under the
proviso in respect of the subjects prescribed, English
was to be the only medium for the periods specified.
Clause (28) which confers authority upon University
"to do all acts and things whether incidental to the
powers aforesaid or not as may be requisite in order
to further the objects of the University and generally
to cultivate and promote arts, science and other
branches of learning and culture" confers additional
powers which though not necessarily incidental to the
powers already conferred by. cls.(l) and (27) were
intended to be exercised to further the object of the
University. But if the object of the University as
indicated hy cl.(27) was not to authorise the imposition of Gujarati or Hindi or both, as an exclusive
medium or media it would be straining the language
of cl.(28) to interpret it as exhibiting an intention to
confer upon the University by using the somewhat
indefinite expression "requisite in order to further
the objects" power to provide for such an exclusive
medium.
Reliance was also placed upon s.18(1 )(xiv) by
counsel for the University in support of the contention
that the Senate was bound to make provision relating
to the use of Gujarati or Hindi in Devanagri script
I S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
131
or both as a medium of instruction and examination.
It is true that s.18(1) deals with powers and duties
of the Senate.
Phraseology nsed in the diverse
clauses is prinw.