# STATE OF KARNATAKA v. ASSO. MGT. OF PRIM. &

- **Citation:** [2014] 5 S.C.R. 1104
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2014-05-06
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal Nos.5166;5190 of 2013
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/state-of-karnataka-v-asso-mgt-of-prim-29959
- **Pages:** 47

## Headnote

[2014] 5 S.C.R. 1104
A
STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR.
V ..
ASSOCIATED MANAGEMENT OF (GOVERNMENT
RECOGNISED ..:.. UNAIDED - ENGLISH MEDIUM)
PRIMARY & SECONDARY SCHOOLS & ORS.
B
(Civil Appeal Nos.5166;5190 of 2013' etc)
MAY 06, 2014
[R.M. LODHA, CJI, A. K. PATNAIK, SUDHANSU JYOTI
MUKHOPADHAYA, DIPAK MISRA AND FAKKIR
C
MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, JJ.]
Constitution of India, 1950:
Art. 350-A - Imposition of mother tongue as a medium
D of instruction in all Government recognized schools in qlass
I to IV in State of Karnataka - G.O. dated 29.4.1994 - Partly
quashed by High Court - Held: The expression 'mother
tongue' in Art. 350A means the mother tongue of the linguistic
minority group in a particular State and this would obviously
E mean the language of that particular linguistic minority group
-
Mother tongue in the context of the Constitution would,
therefore, mean the language of the linguistic minority in a
State and it is the parent or the guardian of child who will
decide what the mother tongue of child is -
However, the
Constitution nowhere provides that mother tongue is the
F language which the child is comfortable with, and while this
meaning of "mother tongue" may be a possible meaning of
the 'expression', this is not the meaning of mother tongue in
Art. 350A nor in any other provision of the Constitution and,
therefore, Court cannot either expand the power of the State
G or restrict a fundamental right by saying that mother tongue
is the language which the child is comfortable with - Further,
State has no power under Art. 350A to compel the linguistic
minorities to choose their mother tongue only as a medium
H
1104
STATE OF KARNATAKA v. ASSO. MGT. OF PRIM. &
1105
SEC. SCHOOLS
of instruction in primary schools -
Government of Karnataka
A
Order dated 29. 4. 1994.
Arts. 14 and 19 - Right of a student, a parent or a citizen
to choose medium of instruction at primary stage - Held:
Right to freedom of speech and expression under Art. 19(1)(a)
8
includes the freedom of a child to be educated at the primary
stage of school in a language of the choice of the child and
the State cannot impose controls on "Such choice just because
it thinks that it will be more beneficial for the child if he is
taught in the primary stage of school in his mother tongue -
C
A child or on his behalf his parent or guardian, has a right to
freedom of choice with regarc1 to the medium of instruction in
which he would like to be educated at the primary stage in
school.
Arts. 14, 19, 21 and 21-A - Imposition of mother tongue
D
as a medium of instruction at primary stage - Held: If State
determines by law that in schools where free education is
provided under Art. 21A, the medium of instruction would be
in the mother tongue or in any language, the child cannot
claim as of right under Art. 21 or Art. 21A that he has a right E
to choose the medium of instruction in which the education
should be imparted to him by the State - Therefore, a child,
and on his behalf his parent or guardian, has the right to
choose the medium of instruction at the primary school stage
under Art. 19(1)(a) and not under Art. 21 or ,Art. 21A.
F
Arts. 19(1)(a), 29 and 30 - Imposition of mother tongue
as a medium of instructions at primary stage -
Held:
Imposition of mother tongue affects the fundamental rights
under Arts. 19, 29 and 30 - State cannot stipulate as a
condition for recognition that the medium of instruction for
G
children studying in classes I to IV in minority schools
protected under Arts. 29(1) and 30(1) and in private unaided
schools enjoying the right to carry on any occupation under
Art. 19(1 )(g) would be the mother tongue of the children -
Government recognized schools will not only include
H
1106
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2014] 5 S.C.R.
A government aided schools but also unaided schools which
have been granted re.cognition.
The instant appeals and the writ petition involved the
legality of the Karnataka Gov~rnment Order dated
8 29.4.1994 whereby it was provided, inter al

## Text

_Characters 0–39,499 of 91,719. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39499 for what follows._

[2014] 5 S.C.R. 1104
A
STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR.
V ..
ASSOCIATED MANAGEMENT OF (GOVERNMENT
RECOGNISED ..:.. UNAIDED - ENGLISH MEDIUM)
PRIMARY & SECONDARY SCHOOLS & ORS.
B
(Civil Appeal Nos.5166;5190 of 2013' etc)
MAY 06, 2014
[R.M. LODHA, CJI, A. K. PATNAIK, SUDHANSU JYOTI
MUKHOPADHAYA, DIPAK MISRA AND FAKKIR
C
MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, JJ.]
Constitution of India, 1950:
Art. 350-A - Imposition of mother tongue as a medium
D of instruction in all Government recognized schools in qlass
I to IV in State of Karnataka - G.O. dated 29.4.1994 - Partly
quashed by High Court - Held: The expression 'mother
tongue' in Art. 350A means the mother tongue of the linguistic
minority group in a particular State and this would obviously
E mean the language of that particular linguistic minority group
-
Mother tongue in the context of the Constitution would,
therefore, mean the language of the linguistic minority in a
State and it is the parent or the guardian of child who will
decide what the mother tongue of child is -
However, the
Constitution nowhere provides that mother tongue is the
F language which the child is comfortable with, and while this
meaning of "mother tongue" may be a possible meaning of
the 'expression', this is not the meaning of mother tongue in
Art. 350A nor in any other provision of the Constitution and,
therefore, Court cannot either expand the power of the State
G or restrict a fundamental right by saying that mother tongue
is the language which the child is comfortable with - Further,
State has no power under Art. 350A to compel the linguistic
minorities to choose their mother tongue only as a medium
H
1104
STATE OF KARNATAKA v. ASSO. MGT. OF PRIM. &
1105
SEC. SCHOOLS
of instruction in primary schools -
Government of Karnataka
A
Order dated 29. 4. 1994.
Arts. 14 and 19 - Right of a student, a parent or a citizen
to choose medium of instruction at primary stage - Held:
Right to freedom of speech and expression under Art. 19(1)(a)
8
includes the freedom of a child to be educated at the primary
stage of school in a language of the choice of the child and
the State cannot impose controls on "Such choice just because
it thinks that it will be more beneficial for the child if he is
taught in the primary stage of school in his mother tongue -
C
A child or on his behalf his parent or guardian, has a right to
freedom of choice with regarc1 to the medium of instruction in
which he would like to be educated at the primary stage in
school.
Arts. 14, 19, 21 and 21-A - Imposition of mother tongue
D
as a medium of instruction at primary stage - Held: If State
determines by law that in schools where free education is
provided under Art. 21A, the medium of instruction would be
in the mother tongue or in any language, the child cannot
claim as of right under Art. 21 or Art. 21A that he has a right E
to choose the medium of instruction in which the education
should be imparted to him by the State - Therefore, a child,
and on his behalf his parent or guardian, has the right to
choose the medium of instruction at the primary school stage
under Art. 19(1)(a) and not under Art. 21 or ,Art. 21A.
F
Arts. 19(1)(a), 29 and 30 - Imposition of mother tongue
as a medium of instructions at primary stage -
Held:
Imposition of mother tongue affects the fundamental rights
under Arts. 19, 29 and 30 - State cannot stipulate as a
condition for recognition that the medium of instruction for
G
children studying in classes I to IV in minority schools
protected under Arts. 29(1) and 30(1) and in private unaided
schools enjoying the right to carry on any occupation under
Art. 19(1 )(g) would be the mother tongue of the children -
Government recognized schools will not only include
H
1106
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2014] 5 S.C.R.
A government aided schools but also unaided schools which
have been granted re.cognition.
The instant appeals and the writ petition involved the
legality of the Karnataka Gov~rnment Order dated
8 29.4.1994 whereby it was provided, inter alia, that medium
of instruction in the State should be mother tongue or
Kaannada with effect from the academic year 1994-95 in
all Government recognized schools in Classes I to IV. The
writ petition challenging the Government Order dated
29.4.1994 was allowed by a Full Bench of the High Court.
C It quashed clauses 2, 3, 6 and 8 of the G.O. dated
29.4.1994 and upheld rest of the G.O. When the mattes
came to be listed before a Division Bench of the Supreme
Court, it referred the following questions for
D
E
F
G
H
consideration by the Constitution Bench:
"(i) What does Mother tongue mean? If it referred to
as the language in which the child is comfortable
with, then who will decide the same?
(ii) Whether a student or a parent or a citizen has a
right to choose a medium of instruction at primary
stage?
(iii) Does the imposition of mother tongue in any way
affect the fundamental rights under Arts. 14, 19, 29
and 30 of the Constitution?
(iv) Whether the Government recognized schools are
inclusive of both government-aided schools and
private & unaided schools?
(v) Whether the State can by virtue of Art. 350-A of
the Constitution compel the linguistic minorities to
choose their mother tongue only as medium of
instruction in primary schools?"
Disposing of the matters, the Court
STATE OF KARNATAKA v. ASSO. MGT. OF PRIM. &
1107
SEC. SCHOOLS
HELD:
Question No. 1 :
A
1.1. The Constitution of India, 1950 is not just an
ordinary Act which the court has to interpret for the
purpose of declaring the law, but is a mechanism under
B
which the laws are to be· made. [para 24] [1131-E-F]
A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras 1950 SCR 88 = AIR
1 !=150 SC 27 - referred to.
1.2. The only provision in the Constitution which
C
contains the expression "mother tongue" is Art. 350A. A
mere reading of Art. 350A would show that it casts a duty
on every State and every local authority within the State .
to provide adequate facilities for instruction in the mother
tongue at the primary stage of education to children
D
belonging to linguistic minority groups. Therefore, the
expression 'mother tongue' in Art. 350A means the
mother tongue of the linguistic minority group in a
particular State and this would obviously mean the
language of that particular linguistic minority group. [para
E
24-25] [1131-E; 1133-F-G]
1.3. Mother tongue in the context of the Constitution
would, therefore, mean the language of the linguistic
minority in a State and it is the parent or the guardian of
F
the child who will decide what the mother tongue of child
is. The Constitution nowhere provides that mother
tongue is the language which the child is comfortable
with, and while this meaning of "mother tongue" may be
a possible meaning of the 'expression', this is not the
meaning of mother tongue in Art. 350A or in any other G
provision of the Constitution and therefore, the Court
cannot either expand the power of the State or restrict a
fundamental right by saying that mother tongue is the
language which the child is comfortable with. [para 26]
[1133-H; 1134-A-C]
H
1108
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2014] 5 S.C.R.
A
Question No. 2:
2.1. The word 'freedom' in Art. 19 of the Constitution
means absence of control by the State and Art. 19(1)
provides that the State will not impose controls on the
8 citizen in the matters mentioned in sub-clauses
(a),(b),(c),(d),(e) and (g) of Art. 19(1) except those specified
in clauses (2) to (6) of Art. 19. In all matters specified in
clause (1) of Art. 19, the citizen has, therefore, the liberty
to choose, subject only to restrictions in clauses (2) to
C · (6) of Art. 19. [para 28] [1135-C-D]
2.2. Freedom or choice in the matter of speech and
expression is absolutely necessary for an irtdividual to
develop his personality in his own way and this is one
reason, if not the only reason, why under Art. 19(1 )(a)
D every citizen has been guaranteed the r!ght to freedom
of speech and expression. (para 29] (1136-D]
Ramesh Thappar v. The State of Madras ~950
SCR 594 =AIR 1950 ~C 124; Sakal Papers {P) Ltd. v. Union
E of India 1962 SCR 842 = AIR 1962 SC 305; Bennett
Coleman & Co. v. Union of India 1973 (2) SCR 757 = (1972)2
SCC 788 Odyssey Communications (P) Ltd. v. Lokvidayan
Sanghatana 1988 (1) Suppl. SCR 486 = (1988) 3. SCC 410;
Secretary, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting,
F
Government of India & Ors. v. Cricket Association of Bengal
& Ors. 1995 (1) SCR 1036 = (1995) 2 SCC 161; !Jnni
Krishnan, J.P. & Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. 1993
(1) SCR 594 = (1993) 1 SCC 645 - referred to.
'.On Liberty' - Essay by John Stuart Mill; 'A Grammar
G of Politics' - by Harold J.'Laski - referred to.
2.3. The right to freedom of speech and expression
under Art. 19(1 )(a) of the Constitution includes the
freedom o( a child to be educated at the primary stage of
H school in a language of the choice of the child and the
STATE OF KARNATAKA v. ASSO. MGT. OF PRIM. & 1109
SEC. SCHOOLS
State cannot impose controls on such choice just A
because it thinks that it will be more beneficial for the
child if he is taught in the primary stage of school in his
mother tongue. [para 31] [1137-D-E]
2.4. This Court, therefore, holds that a child or on his
behalf his parent or guardian, has a right to freedom of
B
choice with regard to the medium of instruction in which
he would like to be educated at the primary stage in
school. It cannot be accepted that the right to freedom
of speech and expression in Art.19(1)(a) of the
Constitution does not include the right of a child or on
C
his behalf his parent or guardian, to choose the medium
of instruction at the stage of primary school. [para 31]
[1137-E-F]
2.5. Once it is held that the freedom of speech and
expression will include the right of a child to be educated
D
in the medium of instruction of his choice, the only
permissible limits of this right will be those covered under
clause (2) of Art.19 of the Constitution. [para 32] [1138H; 1139-A]
2.6. Under Arts. 21 and 21A of the Constitution, a
child has a fundamental right to claim from the State free
education upto the age of 14 years. The language of Art.
21A further makes it clear that such free education which
a child can claim from the State will be in a manner as
the State may, by law, determine. If, therefore, the State
determines by law that in schools where free education
is provided under Art. 21A, the medium of if'!struction
would be in the mother tongue or in any language, the
child cannot claim as of right under Art. 21 or Art. 21A that
E
F
he has a right to choose the medium of instruction in
G
which the education should be imparted to him by the
State. The High Court was not right in coming to the
conclusion that the right to choose a medium of
instruction is implicit in the right to education under Arts.
21 and 21 A. [para 33] [1139-E-H]
H
1110
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2014] 5 S.C.R.
A
Unni Krishnan, J.P. & Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh &
Ors. 1993 (1) SCR 594 = (1993) 1 SCC 645 - referred to.
2.7. Therefore, a child, and on his behalf his parent
or guardian, has the right to choose the medium of
8 instruction at the primary school stage under Art. 19(1 )(a)
and not under Art. 21 or Art. 21A of the Constitution. [para
33] [1140-A-B]
Question No. 3:
c
3.1. A reading of clause (1) of Art. 29 of the
Constitution provides that any section of the citizens
residing in the territory of India or any part thereof having
a distinct language, script or culture of its own shall have
the right to conserve the same and clause (1) of Art. 30
0 provides that all minorities, whether based on religion or
language, shall have the right to establish and administer
educational institutions of their choice. [para 35] [1140G-H]
In re: The Kera/a Education Bill, 1957 (1959) SCR 995
E - referred to.
3.2. A Constitution Bench of this Court in D.A. V.
College, Bhatinda*, has held that minorities have a right
to establish and administer educational institutions of
F 'their choice', and therefore, they have the choice of
medium of instruction in which education will be imparted
in the institutions established and administered by them.
[para 36) [1141-A, E]
*D.A. V. College, etc. etc. v. State of Punjab & Ors. (1971)
G 2 SCC 269 - referred to.
3.3. Under Art. 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, a citizen
has the right to practise any profession, or to carry on
any occupation, trade or business. The word
H "occupation" in Art. 19(1 )(g) has been interpreted to
STATE OF KARNATAKA v. ASSO. MGT. OF PRIM. &
1111
SEC. SCHOOLS
include the activity which results in imparting of A
knowledge to the students even if there is no element of
profit generation in such activity. [para 38] [1143-E-Ff
T.M.A. Pai Foundation & Ors. v. State of Karnataka &
Ors. 2002 (3) Suppl. SCR 587 = (2002) 8 SCC 481 -
B
referred to.
3.4. However, unlike Art. 30(1) of the Constitution, Art.
19(1 )(g) does not have the word "choice". The absence
of the word "choice" does not make a material difference
because Art. 19 is titled "Right to Freedom" and the word
C
"freedom" along with the word "any" before the word
"occupation" in Art. 19(1)(g) would mean that the right to
establish and administer an educational institution will
include the right of a citizen to establish a school for
imparting education in a medium of instruction of his
D
choice. If a citizen thinks that he should establish a
school and in such a school, the medium of instruction
should be a particular language then he can exercise
such right subject to the reasonable regulations made by
. the State under Art. 19(6) of the Constitution. [para 38]
E
[1143-F-H; 1144-A]
3.5. This Court is, thus of the considered opinion that
a private unaided school which is not a minority school
and which does not enjoy the protection of Arts. 29(1) and
F
30(1) of the Constitution can choose a medium of
instruction for imparting education to the children in the
school. [para 38] [1144-B]
3.6. It is, however, well settled that all educational
institutions can be subject to regulations by the State for
G
inter alia maintenance of proper academic standards.
Thus, whether it is a private unaided institution enjoying
the right under Art. 19(1 )(g) of the Constitution or whether
it is a private institution enjoying the special protection
of a minority institution under Art. 30(1) of the
H
1112
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2014] 5 S.C.R.
A Constitution, the State has the power to adopt regulatory
measures which must satisfy the test of reasonableness.
Moreover, the State may exercise this regulatory power
either by making a law or by issuing an executive order.
[para 39] [1144-C; 1145-A-B]
B
3.7. The reasons given by the Division Bench of this
Court in English Medium Students Parents Association
to uphold the Government order of the State of Karnataka
dated 19.06.1989 are that the Government had issued a
corrigendum on 22.06.1989 and a reading of the
C Government order after the corrigendum would show that
there was no element of compulsion at the primary stage
any longer that the medium of instruction from I standard
to IV standard would be in mother tongue. The said
decision is, therefore, not an authority for the proposition
D that prescription of mother tongue in classes I to IV in the
primary school can be compelled by the State as a
regulatory measure for maintaining the standards of
education. [para 41] [1147-H; 1148-A-C]
E
English Medium Students Parents Association v. State
of Karnataka & Ors. 1993 (3) Suppl. SCR 934 = (1994) 1
sec 550 - referred to.
3.8. This Court is of the considered opinion that
though the experts may be uniform in their opinion that
F children studying in classes I to IV in the primary school
can learn better if they are taught in their mother tongue,
the State cannot stipulate as a condition for recognition
that the medium of instruction for children studying in
classes I to IV in minority schools protected un~er Arts.
G 29(1) and 30(1) of the Constitution and in private unaided
schools enjoying the right to carry on any occupation
under Art. 19(1 )(g) of the Constitution w~uld be the
mother tongue of the children. This Court holds that the
imposition of mother tongue affects the fundamental
H
STATE OF KARNATAKA v. ASSO. MGT. OF PRIM. &
1113
SEC. SCHOOLS
rights under Arts. 19, 29 and 30 of the Constitution. [para
A
42] (1148-C-F]
Gujarat University & Anr. v. Shri Krishna Ranganath
Mudholkar & Ors. 1963 Suppl. SCR 122 = AIR 1963 SC 703
- distinguished.
Question No. 4:
B
4. All schools, whether they are established by the
Government or whether they are aided by the
Government or whether they are not aided by the
Government, require recognition to be granted in
C
accordance with provisions of the appropriate Act or
Government Order. Accordingly, Government recognized
schools will not only include government aided schools
but also unaided schools which have been granted
recognition. [para 43] (1149-G-H; 1150-A]
o
Unni Krishnan, J.P. & Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh &
Ors. 1993 (1) SCR 594 = (1993) 1 sec 645; T. M.A. Pai
Foundation & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors. 2002 (3)
Suppl. SCR 587 = (2002) 8 SCC 481 - referred to.
Question No. 5:
5. Under Art. 350A of the Constitution it is provided
that it shall be the endeavour 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 to children belonging to
linguistic minority groups. A linguistic minority under Art.
30(1) of the Constitution has the right to choose the
medium of instruction in which education will be imparted
E
F
in the primary stages of the school which it has
G
established. Art. 350A, therefore, cannot be interpreted to
empower the State to compel a linguistic minority in
violation of its fundamental right under Art. 30(1 ), to
choose its mother tongue only as a medium of
instruction in a primary school established by it. This
H
1114
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2014] 5 S.C.R.
A Court accordingly holds that State has no power under
Art. 350A of the Constitution to compel the linguistic
minorities to choose their mother tongue only as a
medium of instruction in primary schools. [para 44] [1150C-F]
B
State of Bombay v. Bombay Education Society &
Ors.1955 SCR 568 =AIR 1954 SC 561; Usha Mehta & Ors.
v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. 2004 (2) Suppl. SCR 226 =
(2004) 6 SCC 264; Rev. Father W Proost & Ors. v. The State
c of Bihar & Ors. 1969 (2) SCR 73, The Ahmedabad St. Xavier's
College Society & Anr. v. State of Gujarat & Anr.1975
(1) SCR 173 = (1974) 1 SCC 717; P.A. lnamdar & Ors. v.
State of Maharashtra & Ors.2005 (2) Suppl. SCR 603 =
(2005) 6 sec 537 - cited.
D
Case Law Reference:
1993 (3) Suppl. SCR 934 referred to
Para 2
1963 Suppl. SCR 122
distinguished
para 12
E
1955 SCR 568
cited
para 13
(1971) 2 sec 269
referred to
para 13
2004 (2) Suppl. SCR 226 cited
para 15
2002 (3) Suppl. SCR 587 referred to
para 15
F
1995 (1) SCR 1036
referred to
Para 18
1993 (1) SCR 594
referred to
Para 21
(1959) SCR 995
referred to
para 22
G
1969 (2) SCR 73
cited
para 22
1975 (1) SCR 173
cited
para 22
2005 (2) Suppl. SCR 603 cited
Para 22
1950
- 33
referred to
Para 24
H
1950 SCR 594
referred to
para 30
STATE OF KARNATAKA v. ASSO. MGT. OF PRIM. &
1115
SEC. SCHOOLS
1962 SCR 8 42
1973 (2) SCR 757
referred to
referred to
1988 (1) Suppl. SCR 486 referred to
para 30
para 30
para 30
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos.
5166-5190 of 2013.
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.02.2012 passed
by the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka,
Bangalore in Writ Appeal No. 27 40 of 1997 (EON)
W.P (C) No. 290 of 2009
C.A No. 5090 of 2014
C.A Nos. 5191-5199 of 20~3.
WITH
A
B
c
D
,
Prof. Ravi Varma, AG, K. N. Bhat, Anita Shenoy,
Gangadhar J.M .. Vishrurti Vijay, Neha Singh, K.V. Bharathi
Upadhyaya, Mohan V. Katarki, Shailesh Madiyal, Bharadwaj
E
Iyengar, Sanjiv Sen, Muthu Kumar. Vijay Kumar Paradeshi,
Jagjit Singh Chhabra, K.V. Dhananjay, Shekhar G. Devasa,
V.N. Raghupathy. M P. Srikanth, P.R. Ramasesh, Anantha
. Naryana M.G , G.R. Mohan, Prabha Swami, S.N. Bhat, T.V.
Ratnam, Sharanagouda Patil (for S. Legal' Associates), C.M.
Angadi, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, B.K. Pal, Gurudatta
, Ankolekar for the Appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
F
A. K. PATNAIK, J. 1. Leave granted in S.L.P. (C)
G
No.32858 of 2013.
Facts leading to the reference to the Constitution
Bench:
H
1116
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2014] 5 S.C.R.
A
2. The Governr:nent of Karnataka issued a Government
Order dated-19.06.1989 prescribing that "from 1st standard to
IVth standard, mother tongue will be the medium of
instruction". On 22.06.1989, the Government of Karnataka
issued a corrigendum substituting the aforesaid words in the
B earlier Government Order dated 19.06.1989 by the following
words:
c
"from 1st standard to IVth standard, where it is expected
that normally mother tongue will be the medium of
instruction."
The orders dated 19.06.1989 and 22.06.1989 were
challenged before this Court and a Division Bench of this Court
in its judgment dated 08.12.1993 in English Medium Students
Parents Association v. State of Karnataka & Ors. [(1994) 1
D SCC 550] hekl that the two orders of the Government of
Karnataka were constitutionally valid.
3. Thereafter, in cancellation of all earlier orders pertaining
to the subject, the Government of Karnataka issued a fresh
E order dated 29.04.1994 regarding the language policy to be
followed in primary and high schools with effect from the
academic year 1994-1995. Clauses 2 to 8 of the Government
Order dated 29.04.1994, with which we are concerned in this
reference, are extracted hereinbelow:-
F
G
H
"2: The medium of instruction should be mother tongue
or Kannada, with effect from the academic year 1994-95
in all Government recognized schools in classes 1 to 4.
3. The students admitted to 1st standard with effect from
the academic year 94-95, should be taught in mother
tongue or Kannada medium.
4. However, permission can be granted to the schools to
continue to teach in the pre-existing medium to the
students of standards 2 to 4 during the academic year
94-95.
STATE OF KARNATAKA v. ASSO. MGT. OF PRIM. &
1117
SEC. SCHOOLS [A.K. PATNAIK, J.]
5. The students are permitted to change over to English
A
or any olher language as medium at their choice, from
5th standard.
6. Permission can be granted to only students whose
mother tongue is English, to study in English medium in
classes 1 to 4 in existing recognized English medium
schools.
B
7. The Government will consider regularization of the
existing unrecognized schools as per policy indicated in
paragraphs 1 to 6 mentioned above. Request of schools C
who have complied with the provisions of the code of
education and present policy of the government will be
considered on the basis of the report of the Zilla
Panchayat routed through commissioner for public
instructions.
D
8. It is directed that all unauthorized schools which do not
comply with the above conditions, will be closed down."
Thus, these clauses of the Government order dated
29.04.1994 provided that medium of instruction should be
mother tongue or Kannada with effect from the academic year
1994-1995 in all Government recognized schools in classes I
to IV and the students can be permitted to change over to
-English or any other language as medium of their choice from
class V. The Government Order dated 29.04.1994, however,
clarified that permission can be granted to only those students
whose mother tongue is English, to study in English medium
in classes I to IV in existing recognized English medium
schools.
4. Aggrieved by the clauses of the Government Order
dated 29.04.1994 which prescribed that the medium of
instruction in classes I to IV in all Government recognized
schools will be mother tongue or Kannada only, the Associated
Management of Primary and Secondary Schools in Karnataka
E
F
G
H
1118
SUPREME COURT .. REPORTS'
[2014] 5 S.C.R.
A filed Writ Petition No.14363 of 1994 and contended inter alia
that the right to choose the medium of instruction in classes I
to IV of a school is a fundamental right under Articles 19(1 )(a),
19(1)(g), 26, 29 and 30(1) of the Constitution and that the
impugned clauses of the order dated 29.04.1994 of the
B Government of Karnataka are ultra vires the Constitution. The
State of Karnataka and its officers, on the other hand, relied
on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in English
Medium Students Parents Association v. State of Kamataka
& Ors. (supra) and contended that the State in exercise of its
c power to regulate primary education can, as a matter of policy,
prescribe that the inedium of instruction in classes I to IV would
be in mother tongue of the child or Kannada. The State of
Karnataka also contended that Article 350A of the Constitution
casts a duty on the State to provided adequate facilities for
0
instruction in the mother tongue at the primary stage of
education to children belonging to linguistic minority groups and
the Government of Karnataka, after considering a report of
experts in the field of education, has prescribed in ti•"
Government Order dated 29.04.1994 that medium of instruction
for children studying in classes I to IV shaii be in the mother
E tongue of the child.
F
G
H
5. A Full Bench of the Karnataka High Court heard the writ
petition and all other connected writ petitions and in its common
judgment dated 02.07.2008, held:
"(1) Right to education is a fundamental right being a
species of right to life flowing from Article 21 of the
Constitution. By virtue of Article 21-A right to free and
compulsory primary education is a fundamental right
guaranteed to all children of the age of six to fourteen
years. The right to choose a medium of instruction is
implicit in the right to education. It is a fundamental right
of the parent and the child to choose the medium of
instruction even in primary schools.
STATE OF KARNATAKA v. ASSO. MGT. OF PRIM. & 1119
SEC. SClrfOOLS [A.K. PATNAIK, J.]
(2) Right to freedom of speech and expression includes
A
the right to choose a medium of instruction.
(3) Imparting education is an occupation and, therefore, the
right
to
carry
on
any
occupation
under
Article 19(1 )(g) includes the right to establish and
8
administer an educational institution of one's choice.
'One's choice' includes the choice of medium of
instruction.
(4) Under Article 26 of the Constitution of India every
religious denomination has a right to establish and
C
maintain an institution for charitable purposes which
includes an educational institution. This is a right available
to majority and minority religious denominations.
(5) Every section of the society which has a distinct o
language script or culture of its own has the fundamental
right to conserve the same. This is a right which is
conferred on both majority and minority, under
Article 29(1) of the Constitution.
(fl\ All minorities, religious or linguistic, have a right to
establish and administer educational institutions of their
choice under Article 30(1) of the Constitution.
(7) Thus, every citizen, every religious denomination, and
every linguistic and religious minority, have a right to
establish, administer and maintain an educational
institution
of
his/its
choice
under
Articles
· 19(1 )(g), 26 and 30(1) of the Constitution of India, which
includes the right to choose the medium of instruction.
E
F
(8) No citizen shall be denied admission to an educational
G
institution only on the ground of language as stated in
Article 29(2) of the Constitution of India.
H
A
B
c
D
E
1120
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2014] 5 S.C.R.
(9) The Government policy in introducing Kannada as first
language to the children whose mother tongue is Kannada
is valid. The policy that all children, whose mother tongue
is not Kannada, the official language of the State, shall
study Kannada language as one of the subjects is also
valid. The Government policy to have motl'ler tongue or
regional language as the medium of instruction at the
primary level is valid and legal, in the case of schools run
or aided by the State.
(10) But, the Government policy compelling children
studying in other Government recognized schools to have
primary education only in the mother tongue or tlie regional
language is violative of Article 19(1) (g), 26 and 30(1) of the
Constitution of India."
The High Court accordingly allowed the writ petitions and
quashed clauses 2, 3, 6 and 8 of the .Government order dated
29.04.1994 in their application to schools other than schools
run or aided by the Government but upheld rest of the
Government order dated ·29.04.1994.
6. Aggrieved by the judgment dated 02.07.2008 of the Fu!I
Bench of the High Court, the State of Karnataka and the
Commissioner of Public Instruction, Bangalore, have filed Civil
Appeal Nos.5166-5190 of 2013. Fifteen educationists claiming
to be keen that primary education in the State of Karnataka from
F
I to IV standard should be in the mother tongue of the child or
Kannada have also filed Writ Petition (C) No.290 of 2009 for
declaring that the Government Order dated 29.04.1994 is
constitutionally valid in respect of un_ilided Covernment
recognised primary schools tind for a writ· of mandamus
G directing the State Government to implement the Government
Order dated 29.04.1994.
7. As the judgment dated 02.07.2008 of the Full Bench of
the High Court was not implemented for more than a year, a
H Division Bench of the High Court passed an order dated
STATE OF KARNATAKA v. ASSO. MGT. OF PRIM. & 1121
SEC. SCHOOLS [A.K. PATNAIK, J.]
03.07.2009 in Writ Appeal No.1682 of 2009 and other
A
connected matters asking the Government of Karnataka to
comply with the judgment dated 02.07.2008 of the Full Bench
of the High Court and aggrieved by the said order dated
03.07 .2009 in Writ Appeal No.1682 of 2009, different officers
of the Education Department of the Government of Karnataka
B
have filed Civil Appeal Nos.5191-5199 of 2013.
8. A learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court
directed the State of Karnataka in Writ Petition No.3044 of
1994 to grant permission to an institution to run English
C
medium school from 1st standard to 4th standard by order
dated 22.01.1996. The order of the learned Single Judge was
challenged before the Division Bench of the High Court in Writ
Appeal No.2740 of 1997, but on 21.02.2012 the Division
Bench of the High Court dismissed the writ appeal saying that
the order dated 08.07.2008 of the Full Bench of the High Court D
in Associated Management of Primary and Secondary
Schools in Karnataka v. The State of Karnataka & Ors. has
not been stayed by this Court in the Special Leave Petition
under Article 136 of the Constitution. Aggrieved by the order
dated 21.02.2012 passed by the Div.ision Bench in Writ Appeal
E
No.2740 of 1997, the State of Karnataka has filed Special
Leave Petition (C) No.32858 of 2013.
The questions referred to the Constitutfon Bench:
9. All these matters were heard by a Division· Bench of this
Court and on 05.07.2013, the Division Bench passed an order
referring the following questions for consideration by the
Constitution Bench:
F
"(i) What does Mother tongue mean? If it referred to as the
G
language in which the child is comfortable with, then who
will decide the same?
(ii) Whether a student or a parent or a citizen has a right
to choose a medium of instruction at primary stage?
H
A
B
c
D
E
1122
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2014] 5 S.C.R.
(iii) Does the imposition of mother tongue in any way affect
the fundamental rights under Article 14, 19, 29 and 30 of
the Constitution?
(iv) Whether the Government recognized schools are
inclusive of both government-aided schools and private &
unaided schools?
(v) Whether the State can by virtue of Article 350-A of the
Constitution compel the linguistic minorities to choose their
mother tongue only as medium of instruction in primary
schools?"
In its order dated 05.07.2013, the Division Bench also
observed that the Constitution Bench may take into
consideration ancillary or incidental questions which may
arise during the course of hearing of the cases and further
directed that all other connected matters including petitions/
applications shall be placed before the Constitution Bench.
Contentions of learned counsel for the State of
Karnataka:
10. At the hearing before the Constitution Bench, Professor
Ravi Varma Kumar, the learned Advocate General for the State
of Karnataka, submitted that the State Reorganization
Commission, 1955 in paragraphs 773 to 777 of its report has
F
referred to the resolution adopted at the Provincial Education
Ministers' Conference held in August, 1949 that the medium
of instruction and examination in the junior basic stage must
be the mother tongue of the child and that the mother tongue
of the child will be the language declared by the parent or
G guardian to be the mother tongue. He submitted that this
resolution adopted at the Provincial Education Ministers'
Conference held in August, 1949, 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
H school-going children in the respective States. He submitted
STATE OF KARNATAKA v. ASSO. MGT. OF PRIM. & 1123
SEC. SCHOOLS [AK. PATNAIK, J.]
that after the report of the State Reorganization Commission,
A
1955, Article 350A has been introduced in the Constitution
providing that it shall be the endeavour 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 to children belonging to a linguistic minority group.
B
11. The learned Advocate General submitted that, in this
background, the Government order dated 29.04.1994 was
issued by the Government of Karnataka prescribing that the
medium of instruction for children studying in classes I to IV in
all primary schools recognized by the Government will be mother
C
tongue or Kannada from the academic year 1994-95. He cited
the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in English
Medium Students Parents Association v. State of Karnataka
& Ors. (supra) to submit that experts are unanimous in their
view that the basic knowledge can easily be acquired by a child
D
through his mother tongue and that the State Government has
the power to lay down a policy prescribing that the medium of
instruction for children studying in I to IV standards in all
Government recognized schools in Karnataka will be Kannada
or mother tongue.
E
12. The learned Advocate General next submitted that the
High Court was not right in coming to the conclusion that the
right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under
Article 19(1 ){a) of the Constitution includes the right to choose
a medium of instruction and that in exercise of this right, it is a
fundamental right of the parents and the child to choose a
medium of instruction in the primary schools. He submitted that
similarly the High Court was not right in coming to the conclusion
that the right to establish and administer an educational
institution under Articles 19(1 )(g) and 26 of the Constitution will
include the right to choose a medium of instruction. He
submitted that in any case if the State takes a policy decision
that the medium of instruction for the children studying.in classes
I to IV will be their mother tongue, such a policy decision of the
F
G
H
1124
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2014] 5 S.C.R.
A State Government will be within the regulatory powers of the
State. He cited the judgment of this Court in Gujarat University
& Anr. v. Shri Krishna Ranganath Mudholkar & Ors. [AIR
1963 SC 703] in which a Constitution Bench of this Court has
taken the view that the State Legislature has the regulatory
B power to legislate on medium of instruction in institutions of
primary or secondary education. He submitted that under
Article 162 of the Constitution, the State Government has
executive powers co-extensive with its legislative powers and
therefore the Government order dated 29.04.1994 prescribing
c that the medium of instruction of all children studying in classes
I to IV will be mother tongue was well within the powers of the
State Government. He argued that even if it is held that children
and parents have a right to choose a medium of instruction for
classes I to IV or that citizens who have established schools
0 have a fundamental right under Article 19(1 )(g) of the
Constitution to choose the medium in which education will be
imparted to the children studying in their schools, the State
could restrict their right by virtue of its regulatory powers and
prescribe that a medium of instruction for children studying in
E classes I to IV will be their mother tongue.
13. The learned Advocate General next submitted that the
High Court was again not right in coming to the conclusion that
the Government policy compelling children studying in schools
recognized by the Government to have primary education only
F in mother tongue or the regional language is violative of Article
30(1) of the Constitution. He submitted that so long as the State
permits a medium of instruction to be the same as the language
of the minority community which has established the
educational institution, the fundamental rights under Article 29(1)
G and 30(1) of the Constitution are not violated because the
purport of Articles 29(1) and 30(1) of the Constitution is to
promote the language of every community including the
language of a linguistic minority. He cited State of Bombay v.
Bombay Education Society & Ors. [AIR 1954 SC 561] wherein
H a Constitution Bench of this Court has held that a minority group
STATE OF KARNATAKA v. ASSO. MGT. OF PRIM. &
1125
SEC. SCHOOLS [AK. PATNAIK, J.]
such as the Anglo-Indian community, which is based, inter alia,
A
on religion and language, has the fundamental right to conserve
its language, script and culture under Article 29(1) and has the
right to establish and administer educational institutions of its
choice under Article 30(1) and, therefore, there must be implicit
B
in such fundamental right, the right to impart education in its own
institution to the children of its own community in its own
language. He also cited D.A. V. College, etc. etc. v. State of
Punjab & Ors. [(1971) 2 SCC 269] wherein a Constitution
Bench of this Court has held that the purpose and object df
linguistic States is to provide greater facility for the development
C
of the people of that area educationally, socially and culturally
in the language of that region but while the State or the
University has every right to provide for the education of the
majority in the regional medium, it is subject to the restrictions
contained in Articles 25 to 30 of the Constitution and
D
accordingly neither the University nor the State could impart
education in a medium of instruction in a language and script
which stifles the language and script of any section of the
citizens. According to him, the rights under Articles 29(1) and
30(1) of the Constitution are thus not affected by the order dated
29.04.1994 of the Government of Karnataka because it
E
prescribes that the students in classes I to IV will be imparted
education in the medium of instruction of the mother tongue of
the children and the mother tongue of the childreri will be none
other than the language of their linguistic community.
F
14. The learned Advocate General further submitted that
this Court has held in Usha Mehta & Ors. v. State of
Maharashtra & Ors.