Page 1

REPORTABLE        

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOs.   5166-5190           OF 2013 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 18139-18163 of 2008

The State of Karnataka & Anr.              .... Appellant  (s)

Versus

The Associated Management of  (Govt. Recognized unaided  English medium) Primary  and Secondary Schools & Ors.           ....  Respondent(s)

WITH

WRIT PETITION (C) No. 290 of 2009

And CIVIL APPEAL NOs.  5191-5199           OF 2013

(Arising out of SLP(C)Nos.15640-15648 of  2009)

J U D G M E N T  

P. Sathasivam, J.

1) Leave granted in all the special leave petitions.

SLP (C) Nos. 18139-18163 of 2008

2) These  appeals  have  been  filed  against  the  final  

1

Page 2

judgment and order dated 02.07.2008 passed by the High  

Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Writ Petition No. 14363  

of 1994 connected with Writ Petition Nos. 14377, 15491,  

19453,  22563,  25647,  18571,  19331,  17337,  18787,  

19469,  20165,  17338,  22752,  19434,  17677,  19346  of  

1994,  Writ  Appeal  No.  2415 of  1995,  Writ  Petition Nos.  

11785, 29540 of 1995, Writ Petition Nos. 34396, 34684,  

34185 of 1996, Writ Petition No. 30645 of 1999 and Writ  

Petition No. 900 of 2000 whereby the High Court partly  

allowed the writ petitions filed by the respondents herein.

3) Brief facts:

(a) The  Associated  Management  of  Govt.  Recognized  

Primary  and  Secondary  Schools  Association  is  a  society  

registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act

,  1960  (in  short  ‘the  Society’)-Respondent  herein,  

consisting  of  recognized,  unaided,  English  medium,  

primary and secondary schools in the State of Karnataka.  

On  19.06.1989,  the  Government  of  Karnataka,  in  

pursuance of Constitutional mandate under Article 350A of  

the Constitution of India, spelt out its language policy by  

way of a Government Order specifying the mother tongue  

2

Page 3

as the medium of instruction at the primary school level  

and making it mandatory for every child who has not opted  

for ‘Kannada’ as the first language to take it as a second  

language.   The aforesaid order was challenged before this  

Court  in  English  Medium  Students  Parents  

Association vs.  The State of Karnataka & Ors.  1994  

(1)  SCC  550,  wherein,  by  order  dated  08.12.1993,  this  

Court,  while  upholding  the  Government  Order  dated  

19.06.1989, declined to interfere in the matter.   

(b) In the light of the aforesaid order dated 08.12.1993,  

the  Government  of  Karnataka  issued  a  revised  

Government  Order  dated  22.04.1994  purporting  to  re-

affirm  its  policy  set  out  in  its  earlier  order  dated  

19.06.1989.  The Government of Karnataka, having regard  

to  the  difficulties  and  hardships  involved  in  converting  

English  medium  schools  to  Kannada  medium  schools,  

resorted  to  make  the  policy  applicable  to  the  English  

medium schools from the year 1989.  In supersession of all  

the  earlier  orders,  the  Government  of  Karnataka  issued  

subsequent  Government  Order  dated  29.04.1994  

indicating the language policy to be followed in the State  

3

Page 4

with effect from the Academic Year 1994-1995.  As per the  

said  order,  the  medium  of  instruction  from  1st to  4th  

standard  in  all  schools  recognized  by  the  State  

Government shall be either the mother tongue or Kannada  

from the Academic Year 1994-1995, however, permission  

was granted to  the students  studying in  2nd,  3rd and 4th  

standards  to  continue  in  the  medium  of  language  they  

were studying at that time.  It was also ordered to close  

down all the unauthorized schools that were not fulfilling  

the prescribed conditions.   

(c) In  pursuance  of  the  impugned  Government  Order,  

consequential orders were issued to several schools calling  

upon them to  change the medium of  instruction and to  

effect  other  consequential  changes.   Being aggrieved of  

the  impugned  orders,  various  linguistic  and  religious  

minorities,  religious  denominations,  parents,  parents’  

associations,  children  through  their  parents  and  

educational  institutions  run  by  the  majority  filed  Writ  

Petition  being  No.  14363  of  1994  and  connected  writ  

petitions before the High Court of Karnataka questioning  

the constitutional validity of the Government Orders dated  

4

Page 5

22.04.1994 and 29.04.1994 as being violative of Articles  

14,  19(1)(a),  21,  29(2)  and  30(1)  of  the  Constitution  of  

India.   

(d)  The  full  Bench  of  the  High  Court,  by  order  dated  

02.07.2008,  partly  allowed  the  writ  petition  and  the  

connected petitions while upholding the Government Order  

and quashed clause Nos 2,  3,  6 and 8 of the impugned  

Government Order dated 29.04.1994 in its application to  

schools  other  than  the  schools  run  or  aided  by  the  

Government.

(e) Being aggrieved, the State of Karnataka has preferred  

these appeals by way of special leave before this Court.      

Writ Petition (C) No. 290 of 2009

4)  Apart from the above appeals, 15 residents of the State  

of  Karnataka,  claiming  as  eminent  educationists,  deeply  

interested in the subject, namely, that primary education  

from  1st to  4th standard  in  all  Government  recognized  

schools  should  be in  the  mother  tongue of  the children  

concerned filed Writ Petition No. 290 of 2009 under Article  

32 of the Constitution of India praying to declare that the  

Government  Order  dated  29.04.1994  is  constitutionally  

5

Page 6

valid in respect of unaided government recognized primary  

schools also and to issue a writ of mandamus directing the  

State  Government  to  implement  its  order  dated  

29.04.2004 accordingly.   

SLP (C) Nos. 15640-15648  of 2009

The above said petitions have been filed by various officers  

of the Education Department of the State of Karnataka-the  

appellants  herein  against  the  order  dated  03.07.2009,  

passed  by  learned  Single  Judge  of  the  Karnataka  High  

Court, directing them to accord permission to Shubodaya  

Vidya  Samsthe  and  Saraswathi  Education  Society-the  

respondents herein to start an English Medium School in  

the State during the pendency of the appeal before this  

Court.  

5) Since the relief sought for in the appeals and the writ  

petition  pertains  to  the  same  subject-matter,  they  are  

being dealt with by the present order.

6) Heard Mr. P.P. Rao, Mr. H. Subramanya Jois, learned  

senior counsel for the appellants and Mr. Mohan V. Katarki,  

learned counsel for the respondents and Mr. T.S. Doabia,  

learned senior counsel for the Union of India.  

6

Page 7

7) The  Government  of  Karnataka,  by  order  dated  

20.07.1982, prescribed that Kannada shall be the sole first  

language from 1st standard of primary school itself.  The  

constitutional  validity  of  this  order  was  challenged  in  a  

number  of  writ  petitions  before  the  High  Court  of  

Karnataka  by  linguistic  minorities  contending  that  they  

have a right to have primary education in their respective  

mother tongue and, therefore, prescription of Kannada as  

the sole language in which education should be imparted  

from 1st standard itself is unconstitutional and violative of  

Articles 14, 19, 21, 29 and 30 of the Constitution.   

8) Considering the importance of the matter, the same  

was heard by a Full Bench of the Karnataka High Court in  

General  Secretary,  Linguistic  Minorities  Protection  

Committee vs.  State of Karnataka AIR 1989 Kant 226.  

After considering the claim of all the parties concerned and  

also the opinion of various committees, the Full Bench, by  

order dated 25.01.1989, held that the Government Order  

dated 20.07.1982 is unconstitutional to the extent that it  

made  Kannada  a  compulsory  and  sole  subject  for  all  

children in the State of Karnataka from 1st standard and  

7

Page 8

deprived the petitioners therein whose mother tongue was  

not  Kannada to  have primary  education in  their  mother  

tongue.  Along with the said petitioner(s), a writ petition  

was  also  filed  by  English  Medium  Students  Parents  

Association  claiming  that  they  have  the  right  to  have  

primary  education  in  English  language  as  substantial  

number  of  members  of  the  said  organization  were  

converted Christians and, therefore, they have the right to  

have primary education in English.  The said request was  

negatived by the full Bench, however, liberty was given to  

the State to formulate its language policy.  Aggrieved of  

the  said  order  of  the  full  Bench  of  the  Karnataka  High  

Court,  the State Government preferred an appeal before  

this Court.  However, after having preferred an appeal, the  

State  Government  accepted  the  principle  that  primary  

education  from 1st to  4th standard  should  be  in  mother  

tongue  and  issued  a  Government  Order  (GO)  dated  

19.06.1989  in  conformity  with  the  judgment  of  the  Full  

Bench of the Karnataka High Court,  inter alia, prescribing  

that  mother  tongue  shall  be  the  medium  of  instruction  

from  1st to  4th standard  while  the  appeal  was  pending  

8

Page 9

before this Court.  

9) The  English  Medium  Students  Parents  Association  

filed  a  writ  petition  under  Article  32  before  this  Court  

questioning  the  constitutional  validity  of  the  GO  dated  

19.06.1989  on  the  ground  that  prescription  of  mother  

tongue as the sole language of instruction from 1st to 4th  

standard was unconstitutional and violative of Articles 29  

and 30 of the Constitution as it interfered with the right to  

have primary education at that level in English.   

10) The appeals  filed  by  the  Government  of  Karnataka  

and the writ petition filed by the English Medium Students  

Parents Association were heard together and decided by a  

common  judgment  of  this  Court  in  English  Medium  

Students Parents Association (supra).  By order dated  

08.12.1993,  this  Court  upheld  the  decision  of  the  Full  

Bench of the Karnataka High Court.  Thereafter, the State  

Government  made  an  order  dated  22.04.1994  in  

conformity with the judgment of this Court prescribing that  

mother  tongue of  the  children  or  the  regional  language  

shall be the language in which education shall be imparted  

from  1st to  4th standard.   In  the  said  order,  the  State  

9

Page 10

Government  exempted  the  educational  institutions  to  

which permission had been granted earlier to 1989 from  

giving  instruction  in  primary  education  from  1st to  4th  

standard in mother tongue.  This created incongruity for  

the reason that in view of the said exemption, there would  

be  two  categories  of  primary  schools  in  that  one  set  

started prior to 1989 with English medium would continue  

primary  education  in  English  whereas  primary  schools  

started after 1989 were bound to impart primary education  

in mother tongue.  When this contradiction was brought to  

the  notice  of  the  Government,  the  Government  

immediately  modified  the  order  dated  22.04.1994  by  

another order dated 29.04.1994 removing the exemption.   

11) The  Associated  Management  of  Primary  and  

Secondary  Schools,  Karanataka  filed  Writ  Petition  No.  

14363  of  1994  before  the  High  Court  challenging  the  

constitutional  validity  of  the  aforesaid  two  GOs  dated  

22.04.1994 and 29.04.1994.  The State Government filed  

its statement of objection to the writ petition stating that  

by  judgment  dated  08.12.1993,  the  policy  of  the  State  

Government prescribing mother tongue as the language in  

1

Page 11

which the primary education from 1st to 4th standard should  

be imparted was constitutionally held valid by this Court  

and  the  impugned  orders  were  similar  in  that  both  

prescribed that primary education from 1st to 4th shall be  

the mother tongue of the children.  The Full Bench before  

which  the  said  writ  petition  was  posted  ultimately  

concluded  on  02.07.2008  holding  that  the  Government  

orders dated 22.04.1994 and 29.04.1994 were applicable  

only to Government and government aided private schools  

but  not  to  private  and unaided primary  schools,  though  

they were also government recognized schools.  

Contentions of the Appellants:

12) Mr. P.P. Rao, learned senior counsel for the State of  

Karnataka,  by  taking  us  through  various  articles  of  the  

Constitution and the provisions of the Karnataka Education  

Act,  1983  and  the  Right  of  Children  to  Free  and  

Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (in short ‘the RTE Act’) as  

well as various decisions of this Court submitted that the  

High Court committed an error in not following the decision  

of  this  Court  in  English  Medium  Students  Parents  

Association  (supra) in  which  this  Court  upheld  the  

1

Page 12

Government Order prescribing that primary education shall  

be in mother tongue.  He also pointed out that the High  

Court has equally committed an error in holding that this  

Court did not go into the question as to whether a parent  

or  a  student  has  a  right  to  choose  the  medium  of  

instruction at the primary school stage when that was the  

very  question  raised  by  the  petitioners  therein  and  

rejected by this Court. He further pointed out that the High  

Court  erred  in  holding  that  the  parent  and  the  child  

(“pupil”) have a fundamental right of the choice of medium  

of  instruction  at  primary  level  as  against  the  policy  

decision  taken  by  the  State  in  larger  national  and  

educational interest of the children.  According to him, the  

High  Court  failed  to  take  note  of  Article  350A  of  the  

Constitution which stipulates that every endeavor shall be  

made by the State and Local Authority to provide adequate  

facilities for instructions in mother tongue at the primary  

stage of education and empower the State to lay down its  

education  policy  that  primary  education  shall  be  in  the  

mother  tongue  of  the  children  concerned.   He  further  

contended that the High Court equally committed an error  

1

Page 13

in  holding  that  primary  education  shall  be  in  mother  

tongue  only  in  respect  of  government  and  government  

aided  schools  notwithstanding  the  fact  that  all  schools  

belonged to one category as recognized schools and alone  

can impart education.  Finally, he submitted that the policy  

of the Government to have uniform policy in the matter of  

primary  education  is  not  only  applicable  to  Government  

and  Government  Aided  institutions  but  also  to  unaided  

institutions which was approved by this Court in  English  

Medium Students Parents Association (supra).   

13) The  individuals  claiming  as  educationalists  fighting  

for Kannada language who filed writ petition under Article  

32 of the Constitution also adopted the similar arguments.

Contentions of the Respondents:

14) On the other hand, various learned counsel appearing  

for  unaided  Management  Schools,  Linguistic  Minority  

Institutions,  Parents  and  Students  submitted  that  the  

earlier  decision of  this  Court,  namely,  English Medium  

Students Parents Association (supra) did not go into  

the  medium  of  instruction  and  the  issue  therein  was  

mother  tongue/Kannada  as  one  of  the  language  and  

1

Page 14

parents/children have every right to choose the medium  

according to their choice.  In their view, the High Court is  

fully  justified  in  quashing  those  offending  clauses  and  

there is no merit in any of the contentions raised by the  

State and other persons who are all supporting the stand  

of the State.  

Discussion:

15) We have carefully  considered the rival  contentions,  

perused  the  constitutional  provisions,  various  clauses  in  

the impugned orders and decisions relied on by both sides.  

16) The entire argument of both the sides is whether in  

English  Medium  Students  Parents  Association  

(supra) the issue pertaining to medium of instruction was  

contested and a decision was arrived at in that regard? In  

light of the above, it is essential to comprehend the ratio  

laid down in the said decision to arrive at a decision in this  

matter.

17) At the cost of repetition, it is useful to reiterate the  

factual  background  of  the  English  Medium Students  

Parents Association (supra) for better comprehension.  

Government  of  Karnataka,  wedded  to  the  cause  of  

1

Page 15

promotion of Kannada language, appointed a Committee  

of six persons with Dr. V.K. Gokak as the Chairman and  

referred the following questions :

(i) Should Sanskrit remain as the subject for study  

in the school syllabus?

(ii)  If  so,  how  to  retain  it  without  its  being  an  

alternative for Kannada?

(iii)  Would  it  be  proper  to  have  Kannada  as  a  

compulsory  subject  as  per  the  three  language  

formula  and  should  the  option  of  selecting  the  

remaining  two  languages  be  left  to  students  

themselves?

18) The  Committee  submitted  its  report  dated  27th  

January,  1981  which  is  popularly  known  as  Dr.  Gokak  

Committee Report. The gist of the recommendations is as  

under :

(i) Kannada should be introduced as a compulsory  

subject for all children from 3rd Standard;

(ii) Kannada should be the sole first language for  

the Higher  Secondary Schools  (i.e.,  8th,  9th and  

1

Page 16

10th  Standards)  carrying  150  marks,  and  this  

should  be  implemented  for  Kannada  speaking  

people from 1981-82 itself and in respect of others  

from  1986-87,  after  taking  necessary  steps  to  

teach  Kannada  to  them  from  the  3rd  standard  

from the academic year 1981-82 itself.

19) On a consideration of the abovesaid report, the State  

Government passed an order dated 30.04.1982 drafting a  

language  policy,  which  stated  that  Kannada  or  mother  

tongue, shall be the first language.  Since it was felt that  

the order dated 30.04.1982 did not sufficiently reflect the  

aspirations  of  the  Kannada  speaking  people,  the  

Government  thought  it  expedient  to  place  the  entire  

matter before the State Legislature. The State Legislature  

resolved that in the High Schools, Kannada must be the  

sole  first  regional  language  carrying  125  marks.  In  

addition,  a  student  might  study  any  two  languages  

carrying 100 marks each. In accordance with the above  

Resolution,  the State Government made an order dated  

20.07.1982  wherein  the  government  directed  that  

Kannada shall  be the sole first language.  Aggrieved by  

1

Page 19

substituted: - “From  1st  standard  to  IVth  standard,  where  it  is  expected that  normally  mother tongue will  be the  medium  of  instruction,  only  one  language  from  Appendix-I will be compulsory subject of study.”

22) With  this  background,  by  order  dated  08.12.1993,  

this  Court  while  upholding  the  GO  dated  19.06.1989  

dismissed  the  writ  petition  being  No.  536  of  1991  as  

devoid of merits.  23) As regards the Civil Appeal Nos.  

2856-57 of 1989 filed against the full  Bench decision of  

the High Court of Karnataka, it was held that the majority  

opinion of the High Court has approached the matter in a  

proper perspective and concluded as under:-

“25.…..We  have  no  difficulty  in  upholding  the  well- considered judgment of the High court. In fact, the State  has accepted the position and issued G.O. dated 19.6.89  which is impugned in W.P. No. 536 of 1991. Therefore, the  civil  appeals  will  also  dismissed.  However,  in  the  circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to  costs.”

24) In the light of the aforesaid order dated 08.12.1993,  

the Government of Karnataka issued revised Government  

Orders  dated  22.04.1994/29.04.1994  purporting  to  re-

affirm  its  policy  set  out  in  its  earlier  order  dated  

19.06.1989.   Now,  let  us  test  the  contentions  of  the  

appellants  and  the  respondents  in  light  of  the  above  

1

Page 20

verdict.  

25) Learned senior counsel for the appellants contended  

that GO dated 29.04.1994 is based on the judgment of the  

full  Bench  of  the  Karnataka  High  Court  as  affirmed  in  

English  Medium  Students  Parents  Association  

(supra) by this Court, therefore, there is no infirmity in  

the  same which  came to  be  passed in  the  light  of  GO  

dated 19.06.1989.

26) While it  is argued from the side of the respondents  

that  judgment  in  English  Medium Students Parents  

Association (supra)  is with reference to the GO dated  

19.06.1989 whereas the subject matter of the present writ  

petition  is  the  GO  dated  29.04.1994.  Further,  it  was  

submitted that  in  English Medium Students Parents  

Association  (supra) it  was held  that  the  order  dated  

19.06.1989 is not open to challenge because there was no  

element of compulsion in studying Kannada at the primary  

stage and that  from standard 1st  to  4th  where  mother  

tongue  will  be  the  medium  of  instruction,  only  one  

language from Schedule I thereof will be compulsory and  

further  from standard  3rd  onwards  Kannada  will  be  an  

2

Page 21

optional  subject  for  non-Kannada  speaking  students  

whereas the GO impugned in this writ petition departs and  

deviates  from the GO dated 19.06.1989,  the validity  of  

which was upheld by this Court. Kannada is covertly made  

compulsory by the present impugned order under clause  

2, 3, 6 & 8. Hence, the judgment of this Court does not  

and cannot come in the way of considering the present  

writ  petition on merits.  Therefore,  the contention of the  

respondents  is  that  the  fundamental  rights  of  citizens  

cannot be infringed by the State taking shelter under the  

policy.

27) The  full  Bench  of  the  High  Court,  by  order  dated  

02.07.2008,  decided the issue in  the following words in  

the impugned judgment:-

“79. It  cannot  be  disputed  these  clauses  were  conspicuously  missing  in  the  Government  order  dated  19.06.1989.  They  are  introduced  for  the  first  time  in  Government Order dated 29.04.1994. the validity of these  clauses were not the subject matter of earlier proceeding  either before this Court or Apex Court. The Constitutional  validity  of  these  clauses  was  not  challenged  earlier,  no  arguments were addressed for or against the said clauses,  neither  this  court  nor  the  Apex  Court  considered  the  validity of these clauses nor any decision was rendered. It  is for the first time, the aforesaid clauses are challenged  before this Court. Therefore, the aforesaid decisions do not  conclude the matter in issue in this writ petition.

90. As  is  clear  from  the  facts  set  out  above  in  the  

2

Page 22

aforesaid  Full  Bench  Judgment,  the  question  for  consideration was, whether the Government Order making  study  of  kannada  compulsory  from  the  First  Year  of  primary School  in addition to mother tongue of the land  was violative of Article 14, 29 and 30 of the Constitution  and  the  Government  Order  prescribing  Kannada  as  sole  First  language at High School  level  was also violative of  Article  14,  19  and  30  of  the  Constitution.  In  the  Government Order dated 19.06.1989, which was also the  subject  matter  of  the  Writ  petition  under  32  of  the  Constitution  of  India  before  the  Supreme  Court,  the  question  was  again  only  one  language  from  Appendix-I  could be the compulsory subject of study. The full Bench  struck down the earlier  Government Order  as there was  compulsion  to  study  Kannada  and  therefore  violative  of  Article  19,  21  and  30  which  finding  was  upheld  by  the  Supreme Court.  For the same reason the Supreme Court  declined  to  interfere  with  the  subsequent  Government  Order  dated  19.06.1989  as  there  was  no  compulsion  to  study any particular language from I to IV Standard, as is  clear from Clause I  of  the Government Order.  Therefore,  the ratio decedendi, of the Judgment of the Apex Court as  well  as  the  full  bench  is  “If  there  is  an  element  of  compulsion in the Government policy, which infringes the  fundamental  rights  guaranteed  to  the  citizens  of  this  country under the Indian Constitution, such policy is void  and  the  fundamental  rights  have  to  prevail  over  such  governmental  policy.  In  the absence of  such compulsion  the courts should not interfere with the policy decision of  the Government. The question whether a student, a parent  or a citizen has a right to choose a medium of instruction  at  primary  stage  other  than  mother  tongue  or  regional  language  was  not  the  subject  matter  of  the  aforesaid  proceedings  and  the  said  question  was  not  considered  either by this court or by the Apex Court and no decision  rendered in the aforesaid proceedings on the said point.  The casual expressions, observations, conclusions and the  suggestions made in the earlier full bench judgment cannot  be  construed  as  a  ratio  decidendi,  especially  in  constitutional  matters, as the said question did not arise  for consideration in the said case. Therefore the contention  that the question involved in this Writ Petition are squarely  covered  by  the  earlier  decisions  of  this  Court  and Apex  Court  is  without  any  substance  and  accordingly  it  is  rejected.”

28) In  the  line  of  above  observation,  the  High  Court  

2

Page 23

accepted  the  contentions  of  the  respondents  that  this  

Court  in  English  Medium  Students  Parents  

Association (supra) did not consider the issue raised in  

the  present  writ  petition  and  went  on  to  deliver  the  

impugned judgment.

29) After  due  consideration  of  the  contentions  of  the  

appellants and the respondents and reasoning of the High  

Court  in  the  impugned judgment  dated 02.07.2008,  we  

are of the view that issue contemplated in the writ petition  

before the High Court is not untouched by the decision in  

English  Medium  Students  Parents  Association  

(supra).  As already mentioned, Writ Petition No. 536 of  

1991 was filed in order to challenge the validity of the GO  

dated  19.06.1989  which  proposed  to  introduce  mother  

tongue as the medium of instruction and the same has  

been dismissed as devoid of merits. Hence, in view of the  

above,  this  Court  upheld  the  mother  tongue  as  the  

medium of instruction in the primary education.

30) However, it is equally correct that the impugned GOs  

dated  22.04.1994/29.04.1994  were  not  similar  to  GO  

dated  19.06.1989.  Since  the  said  impugned  order  

2

Page 24

reframed  the  earlier  order  by  adding  few  additional  

clauses,  which  were  the  matter  of  dispute  in  the  writ  

petition before the High Court and this Court, a reference  

to the contested clauses in the impugned order shall be  

timely:-  

“Proceedings of Government of Karnataka Sub: Regarding implementation of languages Policy in  

the primary and high schools. Government Order No. ED 28 PGC 94

Bangalore dated 29.04.1994 1. xxx  

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.

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.  

8. It is directed that all unrecognized schools which  do not comply with the above conditions, will be closed  down.”

Therefore,  the  contention  of  the  State  is  partly  correct  

when  it  says  that  the  impugned  GOs  viz.,  

22.04.1994/29.04.1994  are  in  substance  similar  to  GO  

2

Page 25

dated 19.06.1989 since both the GOs stipulated the need  

for  the  child  to  acquire  the  primary  education  in  the  

mother tongue. However, the additional clauses inserted  

in  the  impugned order,  viz.,  Clause Nos.  2,  3,  6  and 8  

compels the child to study in mother tongue or regional  

language which was seriously contested before the High  

Court and this Court.

31) While deciding the validity of these additional clauses  

in the impugned GO, the High Court further went on to  

state that the question whether a student, a parent or a  

citizen has a right to choose a medium of instruction at  

primary  stage  other  than  mother  tongue  or  regional  

language  was  not  decided  in  the  English  Medium  

Students Parents Association (supra)  case and took  

the liberty to decide the same.

32)  Observing  the  fact  that  a  two-Judge  Bench  of  this  

Court has already arrived at a decision as to the question  

whether  the  medium  of  instruction  should  be  that  of  

mother tongue in  English Medium Students Parents  

Association (supra), we are of the view that  it  is  not  

appropriate to decide the very same issue under different  

2

Page 26

grounds  by  a  Bench  of  same  number  of  judges.  If  we  

decide to accept the argument of the respondent that a  

student or a parent or a citizen has a right to choose a  

medium of instruction at primary stage, we in substance  

will  be  contradicting  the judgment  in  English Medium  

Students Parents Association (supra), which upholds  

the mother tongue as the medium of language.

33) Having given our most anxious consideration, we are  

of the opinion that it is a fit case for consideration by a  

larger bench.

34) The crux of all the grounds raised in the petition is  

that whether the mother tongue or the regional language  

can be imposed by the State as the medium of instruction  

at the primary education stage.  

35) The vital question involved in this petition has a far-

reaching significance on the development of the children  

in  our  country  who  are  the  future  adults.  The  primary  

school years of a child is an important phase in a child’s  

education.  Besides,  it  moulds  the  thinking  process  and  

tutors  on  the  communication  skills.  Thus,  primary  

education  lays  the  groundwork  for  future  learning  and  

2

Page 27

success.  Succinctly,  the  skills  and  values  that  primary  

education instills are no less than foundational and serve  

as bases for all future learning. Likewise, the importance  

of a language cannot be understated; we must recollect  

that  reorganization  of  States  was  primarily  based  on  

language. Further, the issue involved in this case concerns  

about  the  fundamental  rights  of  not  only  the  present  

generation but also the generations yet to be born.  

36) Considering  the  constitutional  importance  of  these  

questions, we are of the firm view that all these matters  

should be heard by a Constitution Bench.  With regard to  

the  above,  the  following  questions  are  relevant  for  

consideration  by  the  Constitution  Bench  which  are  as  

under:-   

(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  

affects the fundamental rights under Article 14, 19,  

2

Page 28

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?

Apart from the above said issues, the Constitution Bench  

would also take into consideration any other ancillary or  

incidental questions which may arise during the course of  

hearing of the case.  

37) With regard to the above, all the connected matters  

including petitions/applications shall be placed before the  

Constitution Bench.  Since the matter in issue started in  

the  year  1994,  early  disposal  of  the  case  is  desirable.  

Hence, the Registry is directed to place the same before  

Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India for necessary directions.  

2

Page 29

..…………….………………………J.               (P. SATHASIVAM)                                  

.…....…………………………………J.     (RANJAN GOGOI)                     

NEW DELHI; JULY 05, 2013.  

2