# U.P. HINDI SAHITYASAMMELAN v. STATE OF U.P

- **Citation:** [2014] 13 S.C.R. 675
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2014-09-04
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 459 of 1997
- **Bench:** R. M. Lodha, Dipak Misra, Madan B. Lokur, Kurian Joseph, S. A. Bobde
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/u-p-hindi-sahityasammelan-v-state-of-u-p-29650
- **Pages:** 27

## Headnote

Constitution of India, 1950 - Part XVII; Arts. 345 and C
347 - Constitutional scheme of Part XVII -Ambit and scope
of Arts. 345 and 347 - Discussed.
Constitution of India, 1950 - Part XVII; Arts. 345 and
347-1951 Act was enacted by the State Legislature to provide 0
for adoption of Hindi as the language to be used for official
purposes and other matters of the State of Uttar Pradesh -
Subsequently, the 1989 Amendment Act was enacted to
amend 1951 Act whereby s.3 was inserted after s.2 in 1951
Act providing for Urdu language as second official language E
for such purposes as notified by the State Government from
time to time -. Whether it was constitutional for the U.P.
Legislative Assembly to declare Urdu as the second official
language through the 1989 Amendment Act once it had
declared Hindi as the official language in 1951 under Art.
F
345 - Held: Merely because Hindi was mentioned explicitly
or separately and it was adopted as official language by the
State, it cannot be said that the Constitution ,'oreclosed the
State Legislature's option to adopt any other language in use
in the State as official language - Nothing in Art. 345 barred G
declaring one or more of the languages in use in the State,
in addition to Hindi, as the second official language- Neither
insertion of s. 3 nor the impugned notification in pursuance
of the above provision notifying Urdu as the second
675
H
676
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2014] 13 S.C.R.
A language for the seven specified purposes was
unconstitutional- Uttar Pradesh Official Language Act, 1951
- s.3- Uttar Pradesh Official Language (Amendment) Act,
1989.
B
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD:1.1. Merely because Hindi is mentioned
explicitly or separately and it is adopted as official
language by the State, it cannot be said that the
Constitution forecloses the State Legislature's option to
C adopt any other language in use in the State as official
language. Nothing in Article·345 of the Constitution bars
declaring one or more of the languages in use in the State,
in addition to Hindi, as the second official language.
[Paras 26 and 27][693-D-E]
D
1.2. The use of the word "may" in Article 345 is not
without significance. It indicates that State has
discretion in adopting the language or languages in use
in the State and so .also Hindi. Such discretion can be
E exercised any number of times by the State Legislature
as it deems proper. The only restriction to such
legislative power is in Article 347 in a given situation.
[Para 31][695-D-E]
1.3. Article 345 deals with the power of the State
F Legislature while Article 347 refers to the power of the
President. These two provisions prescribe a different
procedure for making law or issuing directions for
recognising a language as official language. The
G requirement, "a substantial portion of the population of
a State dEtsire the use of any language spoken by them
to be recognized by that State" in Article 347 is not a
requirement under Article 345 for the State Legislature
to enact law adopting the language as official language
H of the State, which is in use in the State. The requirement
U.P. HINDI SAHITYASAMMELAN v. STATE OF U.P.
677
of Article 347 cannot be read as a necessary requirement A
for the State Legislature to exercise its power under
Article 345. [Para 37][697·F·H; 698·A·B]
1.4. There is no merit in the argument that the power
of the State Legislature under Article 345 gets exhausted 8
after a single use. Law and language are both organic
in their mode of development. In India, these are evolving
through the process of accepting legitimate aspirations
of the speakers of different languages. Indian language
laws are not rigid but accommodative - the object being c
to secure linguistic secularism. Neither insertion of
Section 3 in the 1989 Amendment Act nor the impugned
notification in pursuance of the above provision notifying
Urdu as the second language for seven purposes is
unconstitutional. [Paras 43, 44][701-C·F]
o .
Sri Nasiruddin

## Text

_Characters 0–39,806 of 55,276. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39806 for what follows._

[2014] 13 S.C.R. 675
U.P. HINDI SAHITYASAMMELAN
v.
STATE OF U.P.
(Civil Appeal No. 459 of 1997)
SEPTEMBER 04, 2014
A
B
[R. M. LODHA, CJI, DIPAK MISRA, MADAN B. LOKUR,
KURIAN JOSEPH AND S. A. BOBDE, JJ.]
Constitution of India, 1950 - Part XVII; Arts. 345 and C
347 - Constitutional scheme of Part XVII -Ambit and scope
of Arts. 345 and 347 - Discussed.
Constitution of India, 1950 - Part XVII; Arts. 345 and
347-1951 Act was enacted by the State Legislature to provide 0
for adoption of Hindi as the language to be used for official
purposes and other matters of the State of Uttar Pradesh -
Subsequently, the 1989 Amendment Act was enacted to
amend 1951 Act whereby s.3 was inserted after s.2 in 1951
Act providing for Urdu language as second official language E
for such purposes as notified by the State Government from
time to time -. Whether it was constitutional for the U.P.
Legislative Assembly to declare Urdu as the second official
language through the 1989 Amendment Act once it had
declared Hindi as the official language in 1951 under Art.
F
345 - Held: Merely because Hindi was mentioned explicitly
or separately and it was adopted as official language by the
State, it cannot be said that the Constitution ,'oreclosed the
State Legislature's option to adopt any other language in use
in the State as official language - Nothing in Art. 345 barred G
declaring one or more of the languages in use in the State,
in addition to Hindi, as the second official language- Neither
insertion of s. 3 nor the impugned notification in pursuance
of the above provision notifying Urdu as the second
675
H
676
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2014] 13 S.C.R.
A language for the seven specified purposes was
unconstitutional- Uttar Pradesh Official Language Act, 1951
- s.3- Uttar Pradesh Official Language (Amendment) Act,
1989.
B
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD:1.1. Merely because Hindi is mentioned
explicitly or separately and it is adopted as official
language by the State, it cannot be said that the
Constitution forecloses the State Legislature's option to
C adopt any other language in use in the State as official
language. Nothing in Article·345 of the Constitution bars
declaring one or more of the languages in use in the State,
in addition to Hindi, as the second official language.
[Paras 26 and 27][693-D-E]
D
1.2. The use of the word "may" in Article 345 is not
without significance. It indicates that State has
discretion in adopting the language or languages in use
in the State and so .also Hindi. Such discretion can be
E exercised any number of times by the State Legislature
as it deems proper. The only restriction to such
legislative power is in Article 347 in a given situation.
[Para 31][695-D-E]
1.3. Article 345 deals with the power of the State
F Legislature while Article 347 refers to the power of the
President. These two provisions prescribe a different
procedure for making law or issuing directions for
recognising a language as official language. The
G requirement, "a substantial portion of the population of
a State dEtsire the use of any language spoken by them
to be recognized by that State" in Article 347 is not a
requirement under Article 345 for the State Legislature
to enact law adopting the language as official language
H of the State, which is in use in the State. The requirement
U.P. HINDI SAHITYASAMMELAN v. STATE OF U.P.
677
of Article 347 cannot be read as a necessary requirement A
for the State Legislature to exercise its power under
Article 345. [Para 37][697·F·H; 698·A·B]
1.4. There is no merit in the argument that the power
of the State Legislature under Article 345 gets exhausted 8
after a single use. Law and language are both organic
in their mode of development. In India, these are evolving
through the process of accepting legitimate aspirations
of the speakers of different languages. Indian language
laws are not rigid but accommodative - the object being c
to secure linguistic secularism. Neither insertion of
Section 3 in the 1989 Amendment Act nor the impugned
notification in pursuance of the above provision notifying
Urdu as the second language for seven purposes is
unconstitutional. [Paras 43, 44][701-C·F]
o .
Sri Nasiruddin v.
Stat~ Transport Appellate
Tribunal (1975) 2 SCC 671 - held inapplicable.
''The Framing of India's Constitution -A Study" by
Shri B. Shiva Rao (The Project Committee
E
Chairman); Indian Constitution- Cornerstone of
a Nation by Granville Austin, Ninth Impression,
2005; Constitutional Law of India - A Critical
Commentary (Fourth Edition) by H. M. Seervai;
Commentary on Constitution of India, Volume 9,
F
2011 by Acharya D~ Durga Das Basu;
Constitutional Law of India by T.K. Tope, 3rd
Edition, 2010 and "Language policy and linguistic
culture''. An introduction to language policy:
Theory and method (2006) by Harold Schiffman
G
- referred to.
Case Law Reference:
(1975) 2 sec 671
held inapplicable
. Para 29
H
678
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2014] 13 S.C.R.
A
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.
459of 1997.
From the judgment and order dated 16.08.1996 passed
in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 10313 of 1989 of Lucknow
B Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.
Shyam Divan, Salman Khurshid, Sr.Advs .. Dr. I. B Gaur,
S.S. Nehra, Neeraj Dutt Gaur, Piyush Sharma, Vikramjeet
Banerjee, Rakesh Kumar, Merusagar Samantary, lmtiaz
Ahmed and Ms. Naghma lmtiaz (For M/s Equity Lex
C Associates),Advs. fortheAppellant.
Dr. Rajeev Dhawan, Sr.Adv., R.P. Mehrotra, Vibhu Tiwari,
Abhinav K. Malik, Ashutosh Kr. Sharma, Kamlendra Mishra,
Mohd. lrshad Han if, Vishwajit Singh, A.S. Pundir, Arijeet Singh,
D Advs. for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
R. M. LODHA, CJI. 1. On 12.11.1951, the Uttar Pradesh
Official Language Act, 1951 (U.P. Act No.XXVI of 1951) (for
E short, '1951 Act') was published in Gazette Extraordinary and
came into force. 1951 Act was passed in Hindi by the U.P.
Legislative Assembly on 27. 09 .1951 and by the U. P Legislative
Council on 29.09.1951. It received the assent of the Governor
on 05.11.1951. 1951 Act is enacted by the State Legislature
F to provide for adoption of Hindi as the language to be used
for the official purposes and other matters of the State of Uttar
Pradesh.
G
H
2. Section 2 of the 1951 Act reads as under:
2. Hindi to be official language of the State.-Without
prejudice to the provisions of Articles 346 and 34 7 of the
Constitution, Hindi in Devnagri script shall, with effect
from such date, as the State Govern-ment may, by
notification in the official Gazette, appoint in this behalf,
be the language used in respect of the following :-
U.P. HINDI SAHITYASAMMELAN v. STATE OF U.P.
679
[R. M. LODHA, CJI]
(a) (i) ordinances promulgated under Article 213 of the
A
Constitution.
(ii) orders, rules regulations and bye-laws issued by the
State Government under the Constitution of India or under
any law made by Parliament or the Legislature of the 8 .
State, and
(b) all or any of the official purposes of the State; and
different dates may be appointed for different purposes
in clauses (a) and (b) aforesaid.
A proviso was inserted to above Section 2 by U.P. Act
No.9 of 1969. It reads, "Provided that the State Government
may by general or special order, in this behalf, permit the
use of the international form of Indian numerals for any official
purpose of the State."
3. On 07 .04.1982, an Ordinance called the Uttar Pradesh
Official Language (Amendment) Ordinance, 1982 was
promulgated by the Governor. Section 2 of the Ordinance
provided that in the 1951 Act, after Section 2, the following
Section (deemed Section 3) shall be inserted:
In the interest of Urdu speaking people, Urdu language
shall be used as second language, in addition to Hindi for such
purposes as are specified in the Schedule.
c
D
E
Section 3 of the Ordinance provided that in the Principal F
Act, after Section 3, as inserted by the Ordinance, the following
Schedule shall be inserted:
1. Entertaining application in Urdu ·presented by the
members of the public.
2. Receiving documents in Urdu presented for
registration with a Hindi copy thereof.
3. Publication of importan~ Government Rules, Regulation
and Notifications.
G
H
680
SUPREME COURT REPORTS.
[2014] 13 S.C.R.
A
4. Publication of important Government Advertisements.
5. Translation of Gazette in Urdu.
4. The above Ordinance was repl.aced by the U.P. Official
Language (Amendment) (~rd) Ordinance, 1983 (U.P. Ordinance
B 44of1983). The constitutionality of U.P. Ordinance No.44 of
1983 was put in issue before the Allahabad High Court,
Lucknow Bench in Writ Petition No.285 of 1984 by the present
appellant U.P. Hindi Sahitya Sammelan. This writ petition was
dismissed by the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court,
C though by separate judgments.
5. On 07.10.1989, the Uttar Pradesh Official Language
(Amendment) Act, 1989 (U.P. Act No.28 of 1989) (for short,
"1989 Amendment Act") came into effect. 1989 Amendment
0 Act was enacted by the U.P. Legislature to amend 1951 Act.
By this Amendment Act, Section 3 was inserted after Section
2 in 1951 Act providing for Urdu language as second official
language for such purposes as may be notified by the State
Government from time to time.
E
6. In pursuance of the power conferred upon the State
F
G
H
Government to notify Urdu as second official language for
specified purposes, the State Government issued a notification
on 07.10.1989 notifying use of Urdu language as second
official language forthe following seven purposes:
1. Entertaining petitions and applications in Urdu and
replies thereof in Urdu,
2. receiving documents written in Urdu by the Registration
office,
3. publication of important Government Rules,
Regulations and Notifications in Urdu also,
4. issuing Government orders and circulars of public
importance in Urdu also,
U.P. HINDI SAHITYASAMMELAN v. STATE OF U.P.
681
[R. M. LODHA, CJI]
5. publication of important Government advertisements A
in Urdu also,
6. publication of Urdu translation also of the Gazette,
7. exhibition of important signposts in Urdu.
?.Appellant, U.P. Hindi Sahitya Sammelan (Civil Appeal
B
No.459of1997), which had filed Writ Petition No.285of1984
earlier before the Allahabad High Court challenging the
constitutionality of U:P. Ordinance No.44of1983, filed another
writ petition before the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench C
challenging the 1989 Amendment Act and Notification dated
07.10.1989.
8. This writ petition was heard by the Division Bench.
comprising of S.N. Sahay and D.K. Trivedi, JJ.
9. S.N. Sahay, J. in his judgment held that the 1989 D
Amendment Act and the notification impugned in the writ
petition were ultra vires and liable to be struck down. He,
however, observed that the State Legislature shall not be
precluded from making any law in future with respect to Urdu
E
in accordance with the provisions of Articles 345 and 34 7 of
the Constitution.
10. D.K. Trivedi, J., on the other hand, did not concur
with the view of S.N. Sahay, J. He, in his separate judgment,
held that the 1989 Amendment Act and the notification F
impugned in the writ petition did not suffer from the constitutional
vice and the writ petition was liable to be dismissed.
11. In view of the difference of opinion between the
Members of the Bench, the Bench directed the papers to be G
laid before the Chief Justice of the High Court for referring the
following questions to a third Judge for his opinion:
1 . Whether the impugned enactment can be said to be a
valid piece of legislation within the meaning of Article
345 of the Constitution?
H
682
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2014] 13 S.C.R.
A
2. Whether the impugned notification suffers from the vice
of excessive delegation ?
3. Whether the impugned enactment and the impugned
notification are valid and constitutional or ultra vires?
B
12. The Chief Justice of the High Court then referred the
c
D
E
matter to the third Judge, Brijesh Kumar, J. (as His Lordship
then was) for answer to the above questions.
13. Brijesh Kumar, J. answered the questions referred
to him as follows:
( 1 ) That while enacting law to officially recognise a second
language for use in the State, the State Legislature shall
have to consider the provisions of Articles 345 and 34 7
of the Constitution by reading them together; the
impugned enactment is, however, valid piece of
legislation in view of the judgment of the Division Bench
in Writ Petition No. 285/84.
2) The impugned enactment does not suffer from the vice
of excessive delegation.
(3) In view of the answers given on questions No. ( 1) and
(2), I find that the impugned enactment as well as the
notification are valid and constitutional
14. In light of the answers given by the third Judge, the
F matter was placed before the Division Bench for appropriate
orders on the writ petition.
G
H
15. The Division Bench by its order dated 16.08.1996
dismissed the writ petition holding as follows:
In view of the learned third Judge, Hon'ble Brijesh
Kumar, J., the U.P. Official Language (Amendment )Act,
1989 (U.P. Act No.28 of 1989) adding Section 3 in the
U. P. Official Language Act, 1951 is held to be intra vi res.
It is further held that the impugned enactment does not
U.P. HINDI SAHITYASAMMELAN v. STATE OF U.P.
683
[R. M. LODHA, CJI]
suffer from the vice of excessive delegation. The A
impugned enactment as well as the notification are held
valid and constitutional.
In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. No
order as to costs.
16. Aggrieved by the judgment and order of the Allahabad
High Court dated 16.08.1996, the present appellant filed
special leave petition. Leave was granted by this Court on
27.01.1997.
B
17. On 02.09.2003, the appeal was listed for hearing C
before a 2-Judge Bench of this Court. The Bench felt that having
regard to the nature of controversy and the important question
of law arising in the matter, it was appropriate that matter should
be heard by a Bench of 3-Judges.
18. It was then that the matter was listed before the 3Judge Bench on 29.10.2003. On that day, the Court was of
D
the opinion that the appeal needed to be heard by a Bench of
5-Judg~s as it involves substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of Articles 345 and 34 7 of the Constitution. This E
is how the appeal has come up before us.
19. Part XVII' of the Constitution deals with official
1 Part XVII
343. Official language of the Union.- (1) The official language of the
F
Union shall be Hindi in Devanagari script.
The form of num·erals to be used for the official purposes of the Union
shall be the international form of Indian numerals.
(2) Notwithstanding anything in clause (1 ), for a period of fifteen years
from the commencement of this Constitution, the English language shall
continue to be used for all the official purposes of the Union for which it G
was being used immediately before such commencement:
Provided that the President may, during the said period, by order authorise
the use of the Hindi language in addition to the English language and of
the Devanagari form of numerals in addition to the international form of
Indian numerals for any of the official purposes of the Union.
(3) Notwithstanding anything in this article, Parliament may by law provide H
for the use, after the said period of fifteen years, of-
684
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2014] 13 S.C.R.
A language. It has four chapters. Chapter I relates to the official
language of the Union, Chapter II, Chapter Ill and Chapter IV
(a) the English language, or
(b) the Devanagari form of numerals,
for such purposes as may be specified in the law.
B 344. Commission and Committee of Parliament on official
language.-
(1) The President shall, at the expiration of five years from the
commencement of this Constitution and thereafter at the expiration of
ten years from such commencement, by order constitute a Commission
which shall consist of a Chairman and such other members representing
C the different languages specified in the Eighth Schedule as the President
may appoint, and the order shall define the procedure to be followed by
the Commission.
(2) It shall be the duty of the Commission to make recommendations to
the President as to-
( a) the progressive use of the Hindi language for the official purposes of
D
the Union;
(b) restrictions on the use of the English language for all or any of the
official purposes of the Union;
(c) the language to be used for all or any of the purposes mentioned in
article 348;
(d) the form of numerals to be used for any one or more specified purposes
E of the Union;
·
(e) any other matter referred to the Commission by the President as
regards the official language of the Union and the language for
communication between the Union and a State or between one State and
another and their use.
(3) In making their recommendations under clause (2), the Commission
F shall have due regard to the industrial, cultural and scientific advancement
of India, and the just claims and the interests of person~ belonging to the
non-Hindi speaking areas in regard to the public services.
(4) There shall be constituted a Committee consisting of thirty members,
of whom twenty shall be members of the House of the People and ten
shall be members of the Council of States to be elected respectively by
G the members of the House of the People and the members of the Council
of States in accordance with the system of proportional representation
by means of the single transferable vote.
(5) It shall be the duty of the Committee to examine the recommendations
of the Commission constituted under clause (1) and to report to the
President their opinion thereon.
(6) Ne>twithstanding anything in article 343, the President may, after
H
consideration of the report referred to in clause (5), issue directions in
accordance with the whole or any part of that report.
U.P. HINDI SAHITYASAMMELAN v. STATE OF U.P.
685
[R. M. LODHA, CJI]
relate to regional languages, language of the Supreme Court, A
High Courts etc. and Special Directive respectively.
345. Official language or languages of a State.- Subject to the
provisions of articles 346 and 347, the Legislature of a State may by law
adopt any one or more of the languages in use in the State or Hindi as the
language or languages to be used for all or any of the official purposes of B
that State:
Provided that, until the Legislature of the State otherwise provides by law,
the English language shall continue to be used for those official purposes
within the State for which it was being used immediately before the
commencement of this Constitution.
346. Official language for communication between one State and
another or between a State and the Union.· The language for the
time being authorised for use in the Union for official purposes shall be
the official language for communication between one State and another
State and between a State and the Union:
c
Provided that if two or more States agree that the Hindi language should D .
be the official language for communication between such States, that
language may be used for such communication.·
347. Special provision relating to language spoken by a section of
the population of a State.·
On a demand being made in that behalf the President may, if he is satisfied
E
that a substantial proportion of the population of a State desire the use of
any language spoken by them to be recognised by that State, direct that
such language shall also be officially recognised throughout that State or
any part thereof for such purpose as he may specify.
348. Language to be used in the Supreme Court and in the High
Courts and for Acts, Bills, etc.·
(1) Notwithstanding anything in the foregoing provisions of this Part, until
Parliament by law otherwise provides-
( a) all proceedings in the Supreme Court and in every High Court,
(b) the authoritative textsF
(i) of all Bills to be introduced or amendments thereto to be moved in G
either House of Parliament or in the House or either House of the
Legislature of a State,
(ii) of all Acts passed by Parliament or the Legislature of a State and of all
Ordinances promulgated by the President or the Governor of a State,
and
(iii) of all orders, rules, regulations and bye-laws issued under this H
Constitution or under any law made by Parliament or the Legislature of a
State, shall be in the English language.
686
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2014] 13 S.C.R.
A
20. It is apposite here to briefly notice the views of
prominent authors with regard to Part XVI I of the Constitution.
(2) Notwithstanding anything in sub-clause (a) of clause (1 ), the Governor of
a State may, with the previous consent of the President, authorise the
use of the Hindi language, or any other language used for any official
B purposes of the State, in proceedings in the High Court having its principal
seat in that State:
Provided that nothing in this clause shall apply to any judgment, decree
or order passed or made by such High Court.
(3) Notwithstanding anything in sub-clause (b) of clause (1 ), where the
Le(Jislature of a State has prescribed any language other than the English
C language for use in Bills introduced in, or Acts passed by, the Legislature
of the State or in Ordinances promulgated by the Governor of the State or
in any order, rule, regulation or bye-law referred to in paragraph (iii) of that
sub-clause, a translation of the same in the English language published
under the authority of the Governor of the State in the Official Gazette of
that State shall be deemed to be the authoritative text thereof in the
English language under this article .
. D
349. Special procedure for enactment of certain laws relating to
language.- During the period of fifteen years from the commencement of
this Constitution, no Bill or amendment making provision for the language
to be used for any of the purposes mentioned in clause (1) of article 348
shall be introduced or moved in either House of Parliament without the
E previous sanction of the President, and the President shall not give his
sanction to the introduction of any such Bill or the moving of any such
amendment except after he has taken into consideration the
recommendations of the Commission constituted under clause (1) of article
344 and the report of the Committee constituted under clause (4) of that
article.
F
G
350. Language to be used in representations for redress of
grievances.- Every person shall be entitled to submit a representation
for the redress of any grievance to any officer or authority of the Union or
a State in any of the languages used in the Union or in the State, as the
ca8e may be.
350A. Facilities for instruction in mother-tongue at primary stage.-
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; and the President may issue such directions to any State as he
H considers necessary or proper for securing the provision of such facilities.
U.P. HINDI SAHITYASAMMELAN v. STATE OF U.P.
687
[R. M. LODHA, CJI]
It is commonly believed that the keenest controversy in the A
Constituent Assembly was in regard to the official language.
Shri B. Shiva Rao (The Project Committee Chairman) in "The
Framing of India's Constitution -A Study" records: "This issue
produced so much heat and gave rise to such violent feelings
that it was felt necessary from the outset to keep it out of direct B
discussion in the Assembly. The leaders made every effort
to settle it on the basis of general accord, but often it seemed
as though a settlement might not be possible. It was not until
towards the end of the constitution making process that some
kind of agreement could be reached." In Chapter 26 of this C
volume, it is further recorded :
Feelings on the language issue developed formidably
almost from the opening of the Constituent Assembly. It
was, however, not the Hindi versus Urdu or Hindi versus o
Hindustani controversy that was raised at this time; there
was general 'agreement that Hindustani might be the
name for the national language. When the question of
the setting up of a .:;ommittee on the rules of procedure
3508. Special Officer for linguistic minorities.-
E
(1) There shall be a Special Officer for linguistic minorities to be appointed
by the President.
(2) It shall be the duty of the Special Officer to investigate all matters
relating to the safeguards provided for linguistic minorities under this
Constitution and report to the President upon those matters at such
intervals as the President may direct, and the President shall cause all
F
such reports to be laid before each House of Parliament, and sent to the
. Governments of the States concerned.
351. Directive for development of the Hindi language. -It shall be
the duty of the Union to promote the spread of the Hindi language, to
develop it so that it may serve as a medium of expression for ctll the G
elements of the composite culture of India and to secure its enrichment
by assimilating without interfering with its genius, the forms, style and
expressions used in Hindustani and in the other languages of India
specified in the Eighth Schedule, and by drawing, wherever necessary or
desirable, for its vocabulary, primarily on Sanskrit and secondarily on
other languages.
H
688
.A
B
c
D
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2014] 13 S.C.R.
was discussed, R. V. Dhulekar moved an amendment
proposing that the committee should frame rules in
Hindustani and not in English. The Chairman requested
him to speak in English, as many members could not
understand Hindustani; but Dhulekar not only insisted on
speaking in Hindustani but made the remark that those
who did not know Hindustani had no right to stay in India
and were not worthy to be members of the Assembly.
The Chairman cut the discussion short by ruling the
amendment out of order and prohibiting all further
discussion'; but the issue was revived when the report of
the committee came up for discussion. The committee
recommended that in the Assembly business should be
transacted in Hindustani (Hindi or Urdu) or English, but
the Chairman was permitted to allow any member
unacquainted with these languages to. address the
Assembly in his mother tongue. The official records of
the Assembly were to be kept in Urdu, Hindi and English.
21. In Vol. IV of the Framing of India's Constitution -
E Select Documents, Chapter 13 highlights the provisions
relating to Official Language. It is stated therein that neither
the draft Constitution prepared by the Constitutional Adviser
nor the version as settled by the Drafting Committee contained
any provisions relating to official language, but they contained
F provisions as to the language or the languages to be used in
the Union Parliament and the State Legislatures. The language
issue figured prominently during the general discussion on the
Draft Constitution; and the sharp differences of opinion which
developed in the course of the debate revealed the extent of
G feeling which the question had engendered. Towards the end
of August, 1949, Munshi and GopalaswamiAyyangar prepared
detailed draft compromise provisions for inclusion in the Draft
Constitution. The draft provisions on the official language
prepared by Munshi and Gopalaswami Ayyangar as revised
H
U.P. HINDI SAHITYASAMMELAN v. STATE OF U.P.
689
[R. M. LODHA, CJI]
by the Drafting Committee had four chapters, Language of A
the Union, Regional languages, Language of Supreme Court
and High Courts etc. and Special Directive.
22. Granville Austin in the Indian Constitution -
Cornerstone of a Nation, has described Munshi-Ayyangar B
formula as half-hearted compromise. He says that it was a
compromise between opinions which were not easily
reconcilable. There were two basic principles behind the
formula, one "we should select one of the languages in India
as the common language of the whole of India". The second c
principle was "that the numerals to be used for all official Union
purposes should be what have been described as the all-India
forms of Indian numerals." The members of the Assembly
voted for the Munshi-Ayyangarformula.
23. H. M. Seervai in Constitutional Law of India - A D
Critical Commentary (Fourth Edition)¥ has also given a brief
historical account of the language issue that erupted in the
¥ 23.2 The provisions of our Constitution relating to language have raised
no serious questions of legal interpretation, but they have raised serious
political problems. It is outside the scope of this work to describe in
E
detail the various phases of the controversy about language which resulted
in the enactment of Part XVII of our Constitution. Nor is it necessary to do
so, for a well documented and vivid account of the forces at play has
been given by Austin in his chapter entitled "Language and the Constitution
-the Half-hearted Compromise". The chapter repays study, but its effect
may be stated thus: in his struggle for political freedom, Mahatma Gandhi F
raised the question of a national language. He described it at times as
Hindi, and at times as Hindustani, but he understood by both a language
which was neither Sanskritised Hindi nor Persianised Urdu, but a happy
blend of both, written either in the Devanagari or the Persian script.
However the question of language did not receive much attention till it
was forced upon the Constituent Assembly. On political and psychological G
grounds there was a general demand for a national language. But difficulties
became apparent when that demand had to be translated into constitutional
provisions. The need for unity among the Indian people was undisputed,
and English had supplied that basic unity by uniting the people of the
North, whose language was derived from Sanskrit or Persian, and the
people of the South speaking Dravidian languages which were not so
H
690
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2014] 13 S.C.R.
A course of discussion on the Draft Constitution. H. M. Seervai
states that having regard to the place given to the Union in our
Constitution, the importance of the official language of the Union
cannot be overrated. Drawing the distinction between English
B derived. Again, administration at the higher levels, higher education, the
legislature, the law courts, and the professions, all used English, and the
question was which language should take the place of English and when?
Till the partition of India, Hindustani in both the Devanagari and the Persian
script held the field. With the partition of India the cause of Hindustani
was lost, though Mahatma Gandhi held that the Indian National Congress
C
ought to stand for a broad outlook and should stand firm on a language
which was spoken by the largest group of people. Though Hindi was
selected as the official language, it could not be described as the national
language, for, it was not the language generally spoken in all parts of
India, and though spoken by the largest single group of people, that group
did not constitute the majority of people in India. Besides, there were
regional languages such as Bengali in Bengal, Tamil in Madras, Marathi
D and Gujarati in the erstwhile State of Bombay which were spoken by
large populations and it was claimed for those languages that they were
more developed than Hindi. Hindi was therefore described as the official
language. In the Constituent Assembly, the protagonists of Hindi were
prepared to abandon the basis of consensus on which the Assembly had
functioned; but their extreme methods provoked a reaction and some
E who had supported them earlier withdrew their support. The leaders of
the Congress party, who formed the government of the day, counselled
moderation, for they were brought in close contact with the difficulties
involved in making the transition from English to an Indian language. It
appeared at one stage that the unity which had existed in the Constituent
Assembly would break down on the provisions relating to language. But.
F
at the last moment, a compromise formula called the "Munshi-Ayyangar
formula" was evolved and was accepted without dissent. It was a halfhearted compromise, for it gave to neither party what it wanted. Pandit
Jawaharlal Nehru told the Constituent Assembly, that he would not have
accepted Hindi as. the official language if express provision had not been
made that Hindi did not exclude Hindustani, that it was not to be the
G
language of a learned coterie and that Hindi was to be based on the
composite culture of India assimilating words from all languages. A period
of 15 years was provided during which English was to continue but this
was a flexible limit, for Parliament could extend it. The battle over numerals
was settled in favour of "the international form of Indian numerals" -
a
euphemism for Arabic numerals, with a proviso that after 15 years
H Parliament might~y law provide for the use of the Devanagari form of
numerals for such purposes as may be specified.
U.P. HINDI SAHITYASAMMELAN v. STATE OF U.P.
691
[R. M. LODHA, CJI]
and Hindi, on the one hand, and other languages mentioned A
in Schedule VIII, on the other hand, the learned author says:
English was and is a de facto medium of instruction in
various Universities. The Constitution and the Official
Languages Act have continued its use for official B
purposes of the Union of India. Therefore, English stands
in a class by itself, because of historical reasons and
because of express constitutional and legislative
provisions. Hindi also occupies a position by itself. It is
the official language of the Union of India and the c
Constitution contemplates that it should gradually replace
English. Therefore, Hindi is also in a class by itself. But
the other languages mentioned in Sch. VIII stand on a
different footing. The retention of English as a medium
is justified and the substitution of English by Hindi can D
be justified for reasons mentioned above. But the
substitution of any other regional language for English
cannot be justified because there would be other
languages spoken by large groups of people which are
capable of being the media of instruction in Universities. E
Since there are large numbers of people in the city whose
mother tongue is Marathi, Gujarati, Hindi, Tamil,
Malayalam, and Urdu, it would be difficult to justify the
selection of one or more of these languages as a medium
of instruction to the exclusion of the others, if the principle F
of selection is that University education should be in the
mother tongue.
24. Acharya Dr. Durga Das Basu, in his commentary on
the Constitution of India, Volume 9, 2011 while dealing with G
Part XVII under the sub-title "Need for a National Language"
observes that the Constitution makers failed to declare one
language as the national language of India and what has been
provided in the Constitution is mainly a compromise between
H
692
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2014] 13 S.C.R.
A the diverse claims. 7J Dr. Basu then observes that what has been
provided in the Constitution is not a national language but -
(a) an "official language" for the Union (Articles 343-344 ); (b)
regional official languages for the States (Articles 345-34 7);
and (c) official language (a) for purposes of proceedings in
· B the Supreme Court and High Courts and (b) for Bills, Acts,
Ordinances, Regulations, bye-laws at the Union and State level.
Dr. Basu in his treatise quotes the Constitutional Law of India
byT.K. Tope', wherein the author has stated that Hindi has not
been accepted as the national language by the Constitution;
C the Constitution has not laid down any language as the national
language.
25. Now, it is time to turn to the two Articles, Articles 345
and 347, which have fallen for consideration on the issue,
D whether it is constitutional for the U.P. Legislative Assembly to
declare Urdu as the second official language through the 1989
Amendment Act once it has declared Hindi as the official
language in 1951 under Article 345 of the Constitution of India.
The submission by Mr. Shyam Divan, learned senior counsel
E for the appellant, is that having regard to the special
constitutional status of the Hindi language, where the
Legislature of a State by law adopts Hindi as the official
language, two things necessarily follow (one) the State
Legislature is precluded from de-recognising Hindi as an
F official language and (two) the State Legislature is precluded
from adopting any other official language. The argument of
the learned senior counsel for the appellant is founded on the
premise that Part XVI I of the Constitution constitutes complete
scheme with regard to official language. The two key features
G of Part XVII, according to learned senior counsel, are: a special
status to the Hindi language and a special role of balancing
entrusted to the President on the sensitive and potentially
divisive issue of language.
"'(Reference is made to Granville Austin, the Indian Constitution -
H
Cornerstone of a Nation, Ninth Impression, 2005, Pg. 266)
'(3'd Edition, 2010atpp.1113-1114)
U.P. HINDI SAHITYASAMMELAN v. STATE OF U.P.
693
[R. M. LODHA, CJI]
26. What logically follows from the argument of Mr. Shyam · A
Divan is that the text of Article 345 gives two options to the
State Legislature, one, adoption of any one or more of the
languages in use in the State (Option 1) and the other, Hindi
(Option 2) and once Option 2 is exercised, the power of the
State Legislature gets exhausted. If the argument of Mr. Shyam
B .
Divan is accepted, it would mean that the use of the word "or"
signifies that Option 1 would be available to the Legislature of
State only if it does not go in for Option 2. Once the State
Legislature has exercised Option 2, and adopted Hindi as
the language to be used for all or any of the official purposes C
of the State, it cannot go down the route of Option 1. We find
it difficult to accept the submission of learned senior counsel.
Merely because Hindi is mentioned explicitly or separately and
it is adopted as official language by the State, we do not think D
that the Constitution forecloses the State Legislature's option
to adopt any other language in use in the State as official
language.
27. Nothing in Article 345, in our view, bars declaring
one or more of the languages in use in the State, in addition to
E
Hindi, as the second official language. This can only be at the
cost of distorting the provision contained in Article 345. The
significance of the word "or" occurring before "Hindi" is to
dispense with the requirement of Hindi being "in use", while
the requirement of being "in use" for any other language to be
F
declared official language has to be satisfied for exercise of
power by the State Legislature under Article 345. Dispensing
this requirement for Hindi was meant to absorb the adoption
of Hindi across States. This cannot be taken to mean that the
particular State Legislature must sacrifice its power in G
promoting other languages within the State. The purpose of
using Hindi separately inArticle 345 is to facilitate adoption of
Hindi across the States whether or not Hindi is in use in a
particular State. Any other construction to Article 345 would
H
694
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2014] 13 S.C.R.
A be unduly interfering with the language compromise adopted
by the Constitution.
28. Part XVII of the Constitution as its scheme suggests
is accommodative. After all, language policies are constructs
B and they change over time. I"
29. The plain language of Article 345 which empowers
the State Legislature to make law for adoption of one or more
of the languages in use in the State leaves no manner of doubt
that such power may be exercised by the State Legislature
C from time to time. A different intention does not appear from
the plain language of Article 345.