U.P. Hindi Sahitya Sammelan v. State of U.P. [ CIVIL APPEAL NO.459 OF 1997] Constitution Bench
I. Facts
The Hon'ble Supreme Court was approached to decide the challenge put forth against the U.P. Government's Uttar Pradesh Official Language (Amendment) Act, 1989 (U.P. Act No.28 of 1989) seeking to amend the Uttar Pradesh Official Language Act, 1951 (U.P. Act No.XXVI of 1951). While the 1951 Act provided for adoption of Hindi as the language to be used for the official purposes and other matters of the State of U.P., whereas the Amendment seeks to provide for Urdu language as second official language for such purposes as may be notified by the State Government from time to time. IN pursuance thereof, the State Government issued a notification on 07.10.1989
notifying use of Urdu language as second official language for the following
seven purposes: (i) Entertaining petitions and applications in Urdu and replies
thereof in Urdu, (ii) receiving documents written in Urdu by the Registration
office, (iii) publication of important Government Rules, Regulations
and Notifications in Urdu also, (iv) issuing Government orders and circulars of public importance in Urdu also, (v) publication of important Government advertisements in Urdu also, (vi) publication of Urdu translation also of the Gazette, and (vii) exhibition of important signposts in Urdu.
II. Relevant Provisions
Article 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 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.
Article 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 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.
III. Contention against the Constitutionality of the Amendment
It is contended that
(a) Article 345 provides that State Government by law provide for either adopting (i) any one or more of the languages in use in the State or (ii) Hindi; as the language or languages to be used for all or any of the official purposes of that state.
The submission by counsel for the appellant, in short, was that having regard to the Special Constitutional Status enjoyed by Hindi [being the Official Language for the Union, not to be confused with 'National Language'], if one legislature of a State by law adopts Hindi as the Official Language, then, no other language can be adopted as official language.
(b) Power to provide for any other language is reserved for the President of India u/Article 347 and not Article 345 (since Art 345 itself starts with the phrase "subject to Article 347...").
In other words, arrangement in Part XVII of the Constitution seeks to ensure that the States do not yield to demands for multiple official languages sequentially and this power is reserved exclusively with the President (Union Executive) u/ Art 347.
IV. Judgment on the Issue
With respect to the Contention (a), the Hon'ble Court held that 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 declared official language has to be satisfied for exercise of power by the State Legislature under Article 345.
The Court while noting the hostility that arose in the Constituent Assembly on the language issue and the compromise reached on Hindi being only an Official Language and not a National Language, opined that dispensing the 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 promoting other languages within the State.
However, it is submitted that in the present case, since 'Hindi' is itself 'in use' in U.P., therefore, the incorporation of Urdu could have been justified on the first part of the Article 345, i.e., one or more languages in use.
With respect to the Contention (b), the Court held that the expression “subject to the provisions of Articles 346 and 347” occurring in Article 345 does not make Article 345 subordinate to Articles 346 and 347. The Court opined that both the Articles provide for different procedure for making law or issuing directions for recognizing a language as Official language. While Article 347 requires "a substantial portion of the population of a State desire the
use of any language spoken by them to be recognized by that State", Article 345 provides for for the State Legislature to enact law adopting the language as official language of the State, which is "in use in the State".
The only limitation being on the State Legislature under Article 345 of the Constitution of India is that the said language must be in use in the State and further if any direction has been issued by the President under Article 347 then the same will have a binding effect.
In conclusion, it provides two routes for designating a language as an official
language in a State; (a) the adoption by law by the Legislature of the State;
and (b) a direction by the President of India.
V. Decision
The Court upheld the validity of Section 3 in the 1989 Amendment Act and the impugned notification in pursuance of the above provision notifying Urdu as the second language for seven purposes.
VI. Conclusion
The Court by interpreting the letter and spirit of law has given due credence to the difficulty by which the provisions came into existence, where Hindi was made an Official Language only for the Union and to facilitate Hindi as an Official language for states also, the requirement of "being in use" was done away with. (Prof. Granville Austin in the Indian Constitution – Cornerstone of a Nation has described Munshi–Ayyangar formula as half-hearted compromise, a compromise between opinions which were not easily reconcilable and Acharya Dr. Durga Das Basu, in his commentary on the Constitution of India, Volume 9, 2011 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 the diverse claims).
The compromise was on the draft provisions on the official language, as revised by the Drafting Committee, which had four chapters, Language of the Union, Regional languages, Language of Supreme Court and High Courts etc. and Special Directive.
While the Court by not accepting the contention that the Constitution seeks to ensure that the States do not yield to demands for multiple official languages sequentially by reserving such power exclusively with the President, had reiterated the idea of India as a pluralistic nation with deep embedded roots in tolerance of diversity, one can now only hope that the power (power of giving recognition to any language/s as regional official language/s) being vested in a state governments does not become another tool for garnering votes, where the affection of any section of the society for their language is not taken unfair advantage of.
VI. Conclusion
The Court by interpreting the letter and spirit of law has given due credence to the difficulty by which the provisions came into existence, where Hindi was made an Official Language only for the Union and to facilitate Hindi as an Official language for states also, the requirement of "being in use" was done away with. (Prof. Granville Austin in the Indian Constitution – Cornerstone of a Nation has described Munshi–Ayyangar formula as half-hearted compromise, a compromise between opinions which were not easily reconcilable and Acharya Dr. Durga Das Basu, in his commentary on the Constitution of India, Volume 9, 2011 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 the diverse claims).
The compromise was on the draft provisions on the official language, as revised by the Drafting Committee, which had four chapters, Language of the Union, Regional languages, Language of Supreme Court and High Courts etc. and Special Directive.
While the Court by not accepting the contention that the Constitution seeks to ensure that the States do not yield to demands for multiple official languages sequentially by reserving such power exclusively with the President, had reiterated the idea of India as a pluralistic nation with deep embedded roots in tolerance of diversity, one can now only hope that the power (power of giving recognition to any language/s as regional official language/s) being vested in a state governments does not become another tool for garnering votes, where the affection of any section of the society for their language is not taken unfair advantage of.
No comments:
Post a Comment