# UNION OF INDIA & ORS v. MURASOLI MARAN

- **Citation:** [1977] 2 S.C.R. 314
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1976-12-06
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal Nos. 1448 & 1587 of 1971
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/union-of-india-ors-v-murasoli-maran-7040
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
314
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
v.
MURASOLI MARAN
December 6, 1976
[A. N. RAY, C.J., M. H. BEG AND JASWANT SI:NGH, JJ.l
Constitution of India, Articles 254, 343, 344, 349 and 351-"Compulsory i11
service training" in Hindi as__part of duty to all Central Government emp/oycesPresidential Order dated 27th April 1960-Va/idity-Officia/ Lan!{ulilges Act 1963,
s. 3(4), scope of.
Presidential Orders dated 27th April 1960 and the various orders and circulars issued pursuant thereto by the Home Ministry, P & T Department and Railway Board, compelling attendance in "Hindi in service training" as part of duty
and providing for penal consequences for non-attendance were quashed by the
Madras High Court as being inconsistent with s. 3 of the Official Languages Act,
1963 as amended by Act 1 of 1968 which was law made by Parliament under
Art. 343 (3) of the Constitution.
In appeals to this Court on certificates, the appellant-Union contended :
(i) The instructions were aimed at promoting the policy of the constitutional
revisions that Hindi should be the official language of the Union; (ii) No employee was placed at a disadvantage even if one could not qualify oneself in
Hindi becaus~ no penalty was prescribed for an employee who did not attain
any particular standard; and (iii) The Government was within its rights to issue
orders obliging its employees to take training in Hindi language, so that ultimately when Hindi became the language of the Union they could perform their
duty in an efficient and smooth manner. The respondents reiterated their stand,
namely, (i) Article 343 of the Constitution is transitional and directions of the
President are limited to the period of 15 years from the commencement of the
Constitution in view of the provision in Articles 343, 344(1), 344(2)(a) and (b),
344 (3 ), 344 (6) indicating that directions should relate ·to purposes of subclauses (a) to (e) of Article 344(2); (ii) When the Official Languages Act 1963
embodied the field covere4 by Parliamentary legislation, the Presid~ntial Order
would not have any effect; (iii) The Presidential Order is inconsistent with s. 9
( 4) of the Official Languages Act 1963 as amended in 1968 and to that extent
void; and (iv) Under s. 3(4) of the Official Languages Act 1963, persons were
not to be placed at a disadvantage on the ground that they do not have proficiency in both the languages, namely, English and Hindi.
Dismissing the writ petitions and allowing the appeals,
HELD : (1) The Presidential Orders dated 27th April 1960 and the various
orders and circulars issued by Home Ministry, P & T Department and Railway
Board pursuant thereto are valid. [323H]
(2) The Presidential Order w_as validly made ai:d t~ere has b~en and ~an
be no challenge to it.
The Pt es1d~nt Order keeps m vie~ the ultimate .ob1ect
to make the Hindi language as official languarr·. 'mt takes mto note the c1Tcumstances prevailing in our country and considers i~ desirable that the change should
be a gradual one and due. regard should b7 g_iven to. the just claims and
the
interests of persons belongmg to the non-f:!1i;id1 speakm~ a;eas. The i;urpose of
the Presidential Order is to promote the spmt of the Hmdt language and to provide the Central Government employees the facilities to take training in Hindi
language when they are in service. [322F-G]
(3) The provisions in Art. 344 indicate that if there is a Second <=:om.mission
at the expiration of ten Y.ears ~rom the commenc~ment <?f th.e Const1t1~10n, the
President may after constderatton of the report, ts~ue d1Tect1ons at th_ end of
fifteen
y~ars. The provisions containe~ in Art. 344(6) are not 7xhausted by
using it once.
The President can use 1t on more than one accas1C!n.
Fnrther
the effect of the power used cannot be said to be exhausted on the eXPlfY of fifteen
·~
UNION OF INDIA V. MURASOLI MARAN
315
years. The Presidel)tial Order which was issued in 1960 continues to be in force
A
and cannot be said to have exhausted itself at the end o

## Text

A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
314
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
v.
MURASOLI MARAN
December 6, 1976
[A. N. RAY, C.J., M. H. BEG AND JASWANT SI:NGH, JJ.l
Constitution of India, Articles 254, 343, 344, 349 and 351-"Compulsory i11
service training" in Hindi as__part of duty to all Central Government emp/oycesPresidential Order dated 27th April 1960-Va/idity-Officia/ Lan!{ulilges Act 1963,
s. 3(4), scope of.
Presidential Orders dated 27th April 1960 and the various orders and circulars issued pursuant thereto by the Home Ministry, P & T Department and Railway Board, compelling attendance in "Hindi in service training" as part of duty
and providing for penal consequences for non-attendance were quashed by the
Madras High Court as being inconsistent with s. 3 of the Official Languages Act,
1963 as amended by Act 1 of 1968 which was law made by Parliament under
Art. 343 (3) of the Constitution.
In appeals to this Court on certificates, the appellant-Union contended :
(i) The instructions were aimed at promoting the policy of the constitutional
revisions that Hindi should be the official language of the Union; (ii) No employee was placed at a disadvantage even if one could not qualify oneself in
Hindi becaus~ no penalty was prescribed for an employee who did not attain
any particular standard; and (iii) The Government was within its rights to issue
orders obliging its employees to take training in Hindi language, so that ultimately when Hindi became the language of the Union they could perform their
duty in an efficient and smooth manner. The respondents reiterated their stand,
namely, (i) Article 343 of the Constitution is transitional and directions of the
President are limited to the period of 15 years from the commencement of the
Constitution in view of the provision in Articles 343, 344(1), 344(2)(a) and (b),
344 (3 ), 344 (6) indicating that directions should relate ·to purposes of subclauses (a) to (e) of Article 344(2); (ii) When the Official Languages Act 1963
embodied the field covere4 by Parliamentary legislation, the Presid~ntial Order
would not have any effect; (iii) The Presidential Order is inconsistent with s. 9
( 4) of the Official Languages Act 1963 as amended in 1968 and to that extent
void; and (iv) Under s. 3(4) of the Official Languages Act 1963, persons were
not to be placed at a disadvantage on the ground that they do not have proficiency in both the languages, namely, English and Hindi.
Dismissing the writ petitions and allowing the appeals,
HELD : (1) The Presidential Orders dated 27th April 1960 and the various
orders and circulars issued by Home Ministry, P & T Department and Railway
Board pursuant thereto are valid. [323H]
(2) The Presidential Order w_as validly made ai:d t~ere has b~en and ~an
be no challenge to it.
The Pt es1d~nt Order keeps m vie~ the ultimate .ob1ect
to make the Hindi language as official languarr·. 'mt takes mto note the c1Tcumstances prevailing in our country and considers i~ desirable that the change should
be a gradual one and due. regard should b7 g_iven to. the just claims and
the
interests of persons belongmg to the non-f:!1i;id1 speakm~ a;eas. The i;urpose of
the Presidential Order is to promote the spmt of the Hmdt language and to provide the Central Government employees the facilities to take training in Hindi
language when they are in service. [322F-G]
(3) The provisions in Art. 344 indicate that if there is a Second <=:om.mission
at the expiration of ten Y.ears ~rom the commenc~ment <?f th.e Const1t1~10n, the
President may after constderatton of the report, ts~ue d1Tect1ons at th_ end of
fifteen
y~ars. The provisions containe~ in Art. 344(6) are not 7xhausted by
using it once.
The President can use 1t on more than one accas1C!n.
Fnrther
the effect of the power used cannot be said to be exhausted on the eXPlfY of fifteen
·~
UNION OF INDIA V. MURASOLI MARAN
315
years. The Presidel)tial Order which was issued in 1960 continues to be in force
A
and cannot be said to have exhausted itself at the end of fifteen years from the
commencement of the Constitution. It would be strange that the steps nece..<sary
for the change should be given up at the expiry of fifteen years because what
is said to be a switch over from English to Hindi has not been possible and
Parliament provided by law for the continued use of the English language for
particular purposes specified in that law.
[322D-F]
( 4) Article 344 is enacted for the purpose of achieving the object of replacing English by Hindi within a period of 15 years. The ultimate o)Jject is pro-
. vided in Art. 351 which fulfils the object of the spirit and development of the
Hindi language and enlargement of the composite culture of lndia. Articles 343
and 344 deal with the process of transition. Article 343 (3) provides merely for
extension of time for the use of English language after the period of 1.5 years.
The progressive use of the Hindi language is thereby not to be impaired. Extending the time for the use of the English language does not amount to abandonment of progress in the use of Hindi as the official language of the Union.
[321G-H, 322A-B]
(5) Article 344(6) provides that notwithstanding anything in Art. 343, the
President may after consideration of the report of the committee issue directions.
The non-obstante clause in Art. 344 ( 6) does not operate only against
Art. 344( 1) and (2) but against the entire Art. 344, for the reason that so far
as transition is concerned, the directions under Art. 344(6) may continue. Article
344(6) takes this objective and is intended to determine the pace of progrtss
and to achieve the same. [322B-C]
B
c
( 6) The High Court failed to see the sequences of the Presidential Order
D·
and the Official Languages Act. It is erroneous to suggest that the Presidential
Order of 1960 became invalid after the passing of the Act.
The Act merely
continues the use of English language in addition to Hindi. The Act does not
provide anything which cari be interpreted as a limitation on the power of the
President to issue directions under Art. 344(6) of the Constitution. The Presidential Order has no inconsistency with the Act. The non-obstante provision in
Art. 344(6) empowers the President. [J22G-H, 323A-B]
(7) Parliament is legislating in a different field.
The field is the permissible
E
use of English language in addition to Hindi during the period following 15
year~ because the change to Hindi could not be complete. The trasitional period
has exceeded 15 years.
The Presidential Order keeps in view the steps to replace the use of English in Hindi and the application of the Act and the Presi•
dential
Order is
in different fields and has different purposes. The Official
Languages Act is to continue the use of English language after the expiry of 1 S
years, but Presidential Order, on the other hand is, to provide for the progressive
use of Hindi language. It confers an additional qualification on those who learn
Hindi and does not. take away anything from the Government employees. Prizes
F
are offered and there may be increase in pay. These are incentives. The measure~ taken for enforcement of provisions for learning Hindi by providing for
absence from classes as breach of discipline and insisting on appearance at the
examinations are steps in aid of fulfilling the object of what is described as in
service, training in Hindi language. Such enforcement of attendance in examinations for proficiency if necessary for completion of training. · The contention
that the Presidential Order conflicts with s. 3 ( 4) of the Act is unsound.
The
"In service-training" of the employees is during hours of duty and free of co~t.
Even if they fail, there is no penalty. There is _no treatment of unequals alike.
CJ
[323B-F]
Murasoli Maran etc. v. Union of India & Ors. 1972 Madras 40 reversed.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 1448 & 1587
of 1971.
(From the Judgment and Decree dated the 29-1-1971 of the Madras
High Court in Writ Appeal No. 119/70 and Writ Petition No. 471/'10)
Lal Narain Sinha, Solicitor General, S. N. Prasad (in CA No.
1448/71) and Girish Chandra, for the appellants.
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
316
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1977] 2 S.C.R.
K. K. Venugopal and K. R. Nambiar for the respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
RAY, C.J. These appeals are by certificate against judgment and
orde, uated 29 January 1971 of the High Court of Madras.
The respondents filed writ petitions in the High Court for a declaration that the Presidential Order dated 27 April 1960, the Railway
Board orders dated 25 January 1962, Memoranda or Orders of the
Ministry of Home Affairs dated 3 March 1966 and the Posts & Tele~
~aph Department Orders dated 6 February 1965, 4 December 1965.
23 September 1967, 19 June 1968 and 9 February 1970 are void.
The Presidential Order dated 27 April 1960 was inter alia as.
follows:-
"
xxx
xxx
xxx
5. Training of administrative personnel in
the
Hindi
Medium ......... .
(a) In accordance with the opinion expressed by the
Committee in service training in Hindi may be made obligatory for Central Government employees who are aged less
than 45 years. This will not apply to employees below Class
III Grade, industrial establishtments and work-charged staff.
In this Scheme no penalty should be imposed for failure to
attain the prescribed standard by the due date. Facilities for
Hindi training may continue to be provided free of costs to
the trainees.
(b) Necessary arrangements may be made by the Ministry
of Home Affairs for the training of typists and stenographers
employed under the Central Government in Hindi typewriting
and stenography.
(c) The Ministry of Education may take early steps to
evolve a standard key-board for Hindi typewriters.
i[j(j(
xxx
7. Recruitment to local offices of Central Government
Department:-
(c) The Committee has agreed with the recommendation
of the Commission that the Union Government would be justified in prescribing a reasonable measure of knowledge of Hindi
language as a qualification for entering into their services
provided a sufficiently long notice is given and the me~sure
of linguistic ability prescribed is moderate, any deficiency
being made good by further in service training.
This recommendation may be applied for the present in
regard to recruitment in the local offices of the Central
Government Departments in the Hindi speaking areas only
and not in the local offices in non-Hindi speaking areas.
The directions under (a), (b) and (c) above will not
apply to offices under the Indian and Audit and Accounts·
Department .... "
UNION OF INDIA V. MURASOLI MARAN (Ray, C. J.)
317
The Railway Board Notification dated 25 January 1962 inter alia
stated as tollows :
'The progress of Hindi training of staff on the Railways
is very slow and the facilities provided by the Government
are not being utilized properly. Immediate steps should be
taken to correct the position and ensure that the facilities
offered by the Government are not. misused. Since training
in Hindi is obligatory and is being imparted during working
hours, wilful absence from Hindi classes should be treated as
absence from duty and dealt with as such."
The Home Ministry Memorandum dated 3 March 1966 inter alia
stated as follows : In service training in Hindi was made obligatory
for all Central Government Employees below 45 years of age, excluding
employees below Class III Grade, industrial establishments and workcharged staff.
The programme for facilitatin_g the progressive use of
Hindi should be completed by March 1966. Steps for the fuller use
of facilities under the Hindi Teaching Scheme were being laid down.
The facilities indicated that employees workingjn a Ministry should
get themselves enrolled in the Hindi classes and failure to attend these
classes should be discouraged and the obligatory training should include
their appearance at the. examinations.
One of the Posts & Telegraph's Orders referred to above is set out
as _a type.
This Order provides teaching facilities and free training in
Hindi during office hours.
One of the petitioners in the High Court was Murasoli Maran.
A
B
c
D
He described himself as a sitting Member of Parliament and stated that
E
he had duty to represent the people. The locus standi of the petitioner
was challenged in the High Court. The High Court rightly held that
the petitioner could not maintain the petition in the High Court.
The petitioner in the other writ petition described himself as Assistant Manager in the Office of the Post-Master General, Madras. His
locus standi was not challenged.
The petitioners contended in the High Court that the Presidential
Order ceased to h,ave any effect because the Second Language Commission was not appointed as contemplated under Article 344 of the
Constitution. The second contention was that the Presidential Order
and other orders~ circulars and memoranda issued pursuant thereto were
inconsistent with section 3 of the Official Language Act 1963, as
amended, inasmuch as they placed persons like the petitioners in a disadvantageous position on account of their having no proficiency in the
Hindi language.
The two relevant Articles in the Constitution are Articles 343 and
344.
Broadly stated, Article 343 provides as follows.
The official
language of the Union shall be Hindi in Devanagari script.
For a
F
G
period of 15 years from the commencement of the Constitution, the
H
English language shall continue to be used for all the official purposes
of the Union for which it was being used immediately before such commencement. The proviso to Article 343(2) is that the President may,
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
318
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[ 1977] 2 S.C.R.
during the said period, by order authorise the use of the Hindi language
in addition to the English language.
Parliament may by law provide
for the use, after the said period of 15 years, of the English language
for such purposes as may be specified in the law.
Article 344 is as follows. The President shall, at the expiration of
five years from the commencement of the Constitution and thereafter
at the expiration of ten years from such commencement, by order constitute a Commission. 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 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
purchases mentioned in Article 348.
Article 344 further provides that a Committee shall be constituted
and it shall be the duty of the Committee to examine the recommendations of the Commission constituted under Article 344(1) and
to report to the President their opinion thereon.
Article 344 ( 6) provides that notwithstanding anything in Article
343, the President may, after consideration of the report referred to
in clause ( 5), issue directions in accordance with the whole or any
part of that report.
Article 351 provideis that 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 all the elements of the composite
culture of India.
In exercise of the po.'l'ers conferred on the Parliament by Article
343 (3) of the Constitution, the Parliament passed the Official
Languages Act 1963.
Section 3 of the Act provided as fo:lows :-
"Notwithstanding the expiration of the period of fifteen
years from the commencement of the
Constitution,
the
English language may, as from the appointed day, continue
to be used, in addition to Hindi,-
( a) For all the official purposes of the Union for which
it was being used immediately before that day, and
(b) for the transaction of business in Parliament."
Jn 1968, the Parliament amended the
Official
1963 and sub-section ( 4) was added to section 3.
ru; introduced by Amendment in 1968 is as follows :
Languages
Act
Sub-section ( 4)
"Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section ( 1)
or sub-section (2) or sub-section (3), the Central Government may, by rules made under se!ction 8, ,provide for the
language or languages to be used for the official purpose of
the Union, including the working of any Ministry, Department, Section or Office, and in making such rules, due consideration shall be given to the quick and efficient disposal
lJNION OF INDIA V. MURASOLI MARAN (Ray, C. J.)
319
.of the official business and the interests of the general public
and in particular, the rules so made shall ensure that persons serving in connection with the affiairs of the Union and
having proficiency either. in Hindi or in the English language
may function effectively and that they are not placed at a
disadvantage on the ground that they do not have
profi-
. cicncy in both the languages."
On 7 June 1955, the Official Language Commi1Ssion was appoint1ed by the President under Article 344(1) of the Constitution.
The
Commission submitted its report in which the arrangements made by
Government of India for training their employees on voluntary basis
in Hindi Language was reviewed.
The Commission was of opinion
that if experience showed that no adequate results were forthcoming
under such optional arrangements, necessary steps shou:d be
taken
"by the Government of fodia making it obligatory on Government servants to qualify themselves in Hindi within the requisite period, to the
extent requisite for the discharge of their duties.
The recommendations of the Official Language Commission were
placed before a Committee of the Parliament
as
envisaged
under
Article 344 ( 4) of the Constitution.
The Committee was of opinion
that the Government should prescribe obligatory
requirements
on
'Govemment servants to qualify themselves in Hindi language.
The President of India after considering the report of the
Committee, issued the Presidential Order dated 27 April 1960 to which a
reference has already been made.
Training in
Hindi
was
made
obligatory for employees.
Pursuant to the Presidential Order of 27 Apri; 1960, the
Home
Ministry isisued an office
Memorandum
dated
3
March
1966.
Reference· has already been made to that order.
The Home Ministry
Order made it obligatory for Government employees below 45 years
of age excluding certain classes of employees to have, what is
described, "In service training in Hindi". The Memorandum stated that
20 per cent of the employees should be deputed to attend the Hindi
classe11 every year.
The Memorandum also stated that
failure
to
attend these classes should attract penalties.
The obligatory training
was to include their appearance at the examinations.
Pursuant to the Home Ministry
instructions,
the
Post-Master
·General, Madras, under the directions of the Director
General
of
l'oots and Telegraph, issued a Memorandum referring to the Presidential Order of 27 April 1960 and the Home Ministry Order dated
3
March 1966.
The Posts & Telegraph Memorandum
made "In service training in Hindi" compulsory for all Central Government employees who.were aged less than 45 as on l January 1961.
The Memorandum further outlined the facilities and incentives provided for the
Hiriili teaching.
Specific mention was made that attendance to Hindi
dass was compulsory and was treated as part of dutv.
Non-compliance of Government Orderis was to be
treated
as
breach
of
discipline.
Solicitor General contended on behalf 01f the appellant that the
instructions were aimed at promoting the policy of the constitutional
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H.
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
320
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1977J 2 S.C.R,
provisions that Hindi should be the official lanuguage of the Union ..
It was said that with a view to achieving the objective the employees
of the Goven~ment of India ought to be trained in Hindi laniuage.
It was also said that no one was placed at a disadvantage even if one
could not qualify oneself in Hindi because no penalty was pm1cribed
for an employee who did not attain any particular standard.
It was
submitted that the Government was within its right to issue orders
obliging its employees to take training in the Hindi ;anguage, ~o that
ultimately when Hindi became the language of the Union, they could
perform their duties in an efficient and smooth manner.
The High Court upheld the contention of the
respondents
and
held that the directiorns were inconsistent with section 3 of the Official
Languages Act 1963.
The High Court held that the
penal consequences which followed if a Government employee absented himself
from Hindi Classes had the effect of putting such an employee at a
disadvantage.
Counsel for the respondents contended first that
under
Article
343 (3), Par:iament may by law provide for the use, after the period
of fifteen years, of the Enr.;lish language for such purposes as may be
specified in the law.
Emphasis was placed on Article 343
of the
Constitution to submit that Article 343 is transitional and directions
of the President are limited to the period of' 15 years from the commencement of
the
Constitution.
The
following
reasons
were
advanced:
The fact that the Commission has to be constituted under Article
344 at the expiration of five years from the commencement of the
Constitution, namely, 1955 and thereafter at the expiration of ten
years from the commencement of the Constitution, namely, 1960 and
not thereafter, would show that the directions issued by the President
under Article 344(6) are limited to the period of fifteen years from
the commenc~ment of the Constitwion.
The position which
would
prevail after 1965 would not be within the know:edge of the Commission of the years 1955 and 1960 because the Parliament has to
decide the same.
The recommendations of the Commission and the
directions of lhe President cannot relate to the period after 1965.
By reason of Article 344(2) (a) and (b) the recommendations of
the Commission as to the progressive use of the Hindi language and
the restrictions on th.~ use of the English language
are
matters
to
come within the period of fifteen years from the commencement of
the Constitution.
Artic:e 344 ( 3) of the Constitution which requires the Commissi~n
to have due regard to the claims of non-Hindi speaking persons m
public services, indicates that ·, hese claims can be protected only whe11
both English and Hindi language continue.
Article 344(6) which states t:hat notwithstanding anythint: irr
Article 343, thr- President may issue directions should be related
to
purposes of sub-clauses (a) to (e) of Article 344(2).
\
)
r
UNION OF INDIA V. MURASOLI MARAN (Ray, C. J.)
321'
Council for the respondent relied on Artic:e 349 in support of the
contention that the affect of Article 349 is that after fifteen years from
the commencement of the Constitution, if Parliament desires to substitute Hindi for English it can do so under unfettered discretion but
during fifteen years it can sub~titute Hindi for Ernglish language by
Pr~idential directions.
The second broad contention on behalf of the respondent was that
the Official Languages Act 1963 (referred to as the Act) occupies a
field covered by Parliamentary Legislation.
Reference was made to
Objects and Reasons of the Official Languages Act 1963,
to show
that acquiring of proficiency in Hindi is the principal purpose.
Section 3 ( 4) of the Act which was introduced and inserted by Amendment in 1968, was said by the respondent to cover that area and inasmuch as the Official Languages Act speaks of rules and
the same
being laid before Parliament that is the only mode of directions.
In
other words, it was said that the Presidential Order would not have
any effect when the Official Languages A<:t occupied the field.
The third head of submissions was that the Presidential Order is
inconsistent with section 3 ( 4) of the Act. It was said in the
High
Court that if the Presidential Order was
inco~s.istent with
section
3 l4) of the Act it would to that extent be void. It was stressed that
under section 3 ( 4) of the Act, persons were not to be placed at a
disadvantage on the ground that they do not have proficiency in both
the languages, namely, English and Hindi.
In the forefront stands Article 343 whicfr1 states that the official
language of the Union shall be Hindi in Devanagari script.
Article
351 states that 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 all the elements of the composite culture of India
and to secure its enrichment by assimilating without interfering with
its genius, the forms, style and expres1sions used in Hindustani and in
the other languages of India specified in the Eighth
Schedule.
The
original calcula,.tion of the framers of the Constitution was that for
a
period of fifteen years the Eng· ish language should be used for all
official purposes.
That is why two Commissions were contemplated
under Article 344-one in 1955 and one in 1960. The provisions of
Article 344 indicate that it shall be foe duty· of the Commission to
make recommendations to the Pnsident as to the progressive use of
the Hindi language.
The provisions of the, Constitution indieate the
progre~s towards the use of Hindi language. ·
It is in this context that Article 344 is enacted for 'he purpose of
achieving the object of replacing English by Hindi within a period of
fifteen years.
Article 343 (3) states that Parliament may by Jaw after
the period of fifteen years provide for the use of Englsh language.
Although the Constitution considered thej period oi' 15 years for
replacing Engli5h the Constitution also found that it might not be
A.
c
E
F
possible to complete it.
Therefore, Article 343 (3) provides merely
H~
for extension of time for the use of English language after the period
of 15 years.
The progressive use of the Hindi language is thereby
not to be impaired.
Extending the time for the use of the English
A
c
D
E
F
322
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1977] 2 S.C.R.
language does not amount to abandonment of progress in the use of
Hindi as the official language of the Union.
Comparing clauses (2) and (3) of Article 343 it will be noticed
that while English is permitted to be continued for all official purposes
for which it was being used clause (3)
contemplated that having
regard to the progress made Parliament, 'if necessary will choose the
purpose for which the use of the English lang1,1age might be continued.
Article 344 ( 6) provides that notwithstanding anything in Article
343, the President may, after consideration of the report of the Committee referred to in clause ( 5), issue directions.
The non-abstante
clause In Article 344(6) does not operate only against Article 344(1)
and (2) but against the entire Article 344 for the reason that so far
as transition is concerned the diretcions under Article 344(6)
may
continue.
Article 343 and 344 deal with the processes of transition.
The ultimate aim is provided in Article 351 which fulfil1s the object
of the spread and development of the Hindi language am! enrichment
of the composite culture of India.
Article 344(6) takes into account
this objective and is intended to determine the paC'.e of progress and
to achieve the same.
The provisions in Article 344 indicate that if there is
a second
Commission at the expiration of ten years from the commencement of
the Constitution, the President may, after consideration of the report,
issue directions at the end of fifteen years.
The provisions contained
in Article 344(6) are not exhausted by using it once.
The President
can U:!e it on more than one occasion.
Further the effect
of the
power used cannot be said to be exhausted on the expiry of fifteen
years.
The Presidential Order which was issued in 1960 continues to
be in force and cannot be said W have exhausted itself at the end of
15 years from the commencement of the Constitution.
It would be
strange that the steps necessary for the change should be given up at
the expiry of 15 years because what is said to be a switch over from
English to Hindi has not been possible and Parliament provilkd
by
law for the continued use of the English language for particular purposes specified in that law.
The Presidential Order keeps in view the ultimate object to make
the Hindi language a!! official language, but tak<Js into note the circumstances prevai;ing in our country and considers it d<tsirablc
that
the change should be a gradual one and due regard should be given to
the just claims and the interetsts of persons belonging to
the
nonHindi speaking areas.
The purpose of the Presidential Order is
to
promote the spread of the Hindi language and to provide the C~ntral
Government employees the facilities to take training in
Himli
language when they are in service.
The Presidential Order was validly made and there has been and
l'H
can he no challenge to it.
It is erroneous to suggest that the
Pre•~i
dential Order of 1960 became invalid after the passing of the
Act.
The H;gh Court failed to see the sequence of the Presidential Order
and the Act.
...
UNION OF INDIA v. MURASOLI MARAN (Ray, C. J.)
323
The Act merely continues the use of the English language in addition to Hindi.
The Act does not provide anything which can be A
interpreted as a limitation on the power of the
President to issue
directions under Article 344(6) of the Constitution.
The Presidential Order has no inconsistency with the Act.
The non-obstante provisions in Article 344(6) empower the
President.
Therefore,
the
Presidential Order is paramount.
Parliament is legislating in a different field.
The filed is the per
B·
missive use of English language in addition to Hindi during the period
following 15 years because the change to Hindi could not be
complete.
The transitional period .has exceeded 15 years.
The
Presidential Order keeps in view the steps to replace the use of English
language.
The operation of the Act and the Presidentia1 Order is in
different fields and has different purposes.
The Act is to continue the
use o£ English language after the expiry of fifteen years.
The Presi- C
dential Order on the other hand is to provide for the progressive use
of the Hindi language.
The contention of the reispondent that persons are placed at a disadvantage is incorrect.
The Presidential Order confers an additional
qualification on those who learn Hindi.
The Presidential Order dots
not take away anything from the Government employees. Prizes are D<
offered and there may be increase in pay.
Theise are incentives. Thi:
measures taken for enforcement of provisions for learning Hindi
by providing for absence from classeis as breach of discip;ine and
insisting on appearance at the examinations are steps in aid of fulfilling the object of what is described as "in-service training in Hindi
lan~age." Such enforcement of attendance and examinations for
proficiency is necessary for completion of training.
The contention E
that the Presidential Order conflicts with section 3 ( 4) of the Act is
unsound.
The "in-service training" of the employees is during hours
of duty and free of cost.
Even if they fail there is no penalty. There
is no treatment of unequals alike.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the High Court is set
aside.
The Presidential Order and other Orders challenged
111
the
writ petitions are upheld.
The appeals are accepted.
The writ peti- F
tions are dismissed. Parties will pay and bear their own costs.
S.R.
Appeal allowed.