http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

PETITIONER: HINDI HITRAKSHAK SAMITI AND ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT26/02/1990

BENCH: MUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (CJ) BENCH: MUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (CJ) SAIKIA, K.N. (J) PUNCHHI, M.M.

CITATION:  1990 AIR  851            1990 SCR  (1) 588  1990 SCC  (2) 352        JT 1990 (1)   359  1990 SCALE  (1)433

ACT:     Constitution   of  India,  1950:  Articles   29(2)   and 32--Non-holding  of pre-medical and pre-dental  examinations in  Hindi  or other regional languages--Whether  amounts  to denial  of admission on grounds of language--Whether  viola- tive  of Fundamental Rights--Writ for direction  to  conduct examination  in  particular  language--Whether   appropriate remedy.

HEADNOTE:     A  Writ Petition was filed in this Court praying  for  a direction  to.the respondents to hold pre-medical  and  pre- dental examination in Hindi and other regional languages.     It was contended that pre-medical studies in medical and dental  examination should be permitted in Hindi  and  other regional languages and not in English alone, that  admission should not be refused and/or examinations should not be held in English alone if the examinees or the entrants sought  to appear in Hindi or other regional languages, and that by not holding  the  examinations in Hindi or other  regional  lan- guages, there was a breach of Article 29(2). Dismissing the writ petition as withdrawn, the Court,     HELD:  1.1  The jurisdiction conferred  on  the  Supreme Court under Article 32 is an important and integral part  of the Indian Constitution but violation of a fundamental right is the sine qua non for seeking enforcement of those  rights by the Supreme Court. [591D-E]     1.2  Not holding entrance examination in any  particular language, be it Hindi or regional language cannot amount  to denial of admission on the ground of language. Every  educa- tional  institution  has right to determine or set  out  its method of education and conditions of examination and  stud- ies  provided these do not directly or indirectly  have  any casual  connection with violation of the fundamental  rights guaranteed  by  the Constitution. It may be  that  Hindi  or other  regional  languages are more  appropriate  medium  of imparting education to very many and 589 it  may be appropriate and proper to hold the  examinations, entrance  or otherwise, in any particular regional or  Hindi

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

Language, or it may be that Hindi or other regional language because of development of the language, is not yet appropri- ate  medium to transmute or test the knowledge  or  capacity that could be had in medical and dental disciplines. It is a matter of formulation of policy by the State or  educational authorities in-charge of any particular situation. [591 E, G JUDGMENT:     1.3 Where the existence of a fundamental right has to be established by acceptance of a particular policy or a course of action for which there is no legal compulsion or statuto- ry  imperative, and on which there are divergent views,  the same  cannot be sought to be enforced by Article 32  of  the Constitution.  Article  32 of the Constitution cannot  be  a means to indicate policy preference. [592B-C]     1.4  The  actions following from non-acceptance  of  any policy perspective cannot amount to direct and casual viola- tion  of  the fundamental right of the  citizens  guaranteed under  the Constitution of India. Court is not the forum  to adjudicate upon the questions of policy unless such a policy is the direct mandate of the COnstitution. [592D]     1.5 Whether in particular facts and circumstances of the instant case, admission to medical or dental Institution  by conducting examination in Hindi or other regional  languages would  be  appropriate or desirable or not, is a  matter  on which debate is possible and the acceptance of one view over the other involves a policy decision. It cannot be appropri- ately  dealt with by this Court, and order under Article  32 of  the Constitution in those circumstances would not be  an appropriate remedy. [592H, 593A]

&     CIVIL  ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil)  No. 428 of 1989. (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India). Dr. L.M. Singhvi, N. Wazir and D. Bhandari for the Petition- ers. Rajiv Dutta for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by     SABYASACHI  MUKHARJI, CJ. This is an  application  under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for issue of a  writ of mandamus 590 directing  the  Central Government to  hold-pre-medical  and pre-dental entrance examinations in Hindi and other regional languages  as,  according to the  petitioners,  mandated  by Article 29(2) of the Constitution of India. The petition  is by  nine petitioners. Petitioner No. 1 is  Hindi  Hitrakshak Samiti  which is stated to be a society formed with the  aim and  object of propagating and ensuring the  propagation  of the  national language Hindi and other  regional  languages; and  to further the cause of the citizens of India  who  are educated  in any one or more of the languages and  who  face difficulty  in competitive examinations in which the  medium of examination is English only.     Petitioners  Nos.  3 to 10 are the students  who  allege that they wish to appear in the coming PMT/PDT  examinations in Hindi or other regional languages and are being adversely affected and discriminated against, and will be in a  disad- vantageous  position in the forthcoming PMT/PDT  examination in comparison to those who have passed the higher  secondary or  equivalent examination with English as their  medium  of instruction.  The  petition  seeks issue  of  writ  directed against  the  Union  of India, Central  Board  of  Secondary

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

Education and Medical Council of India.     It is stated that in the year 1974 there was a survey by National Council for Educational Research & Training (NCERT) which, according to the petitioners, showed that out of  the students passing intermediate, about 92.5% take their exami- nation in Hindi and other regional languages. The  petition- ers  allege that Kothari Commission’s report on Civil  Serv- ices Examination had recommended that the examination papers be  set both in English and Hindi and the  examinees  should have a choice of answering them in English, Hindi or any  of the  15 regional languages Constitutionally  recognised.  It was  stated  that it was also noteworthy  that  the  Kothari Commission’s  report  had recommended that Hindi  and  other regional  languages  in Universities would be  necessary  in order  to  make use of the best potential available  in  the country. In 1986 this Court in the case of Dr. Dinesh  Kumar &  Ors. v. Motilal Nehru Medical College, Allahabad &  Ors., [1986] 3 SCC 727 dealt with certain aspects of admission  to the Medical College, but not on the present aspect.  Letters and  representations  to  the Ministry of  Health  &  Family Welfare,  by  the petitioners were made on  23rd  September, 1988  requesting the Government to consider  conducting  the PMT/PTD examinations in Hindi and other regional  languages. It is stated that a letter was issued on both December, 1988 by  the  Government of India to the effect  that  the  Joint Engineering Examination (JEE) for the five I.I.Ts. and the 591 Engineering  College of Banaras be conducted in Indian  lan- guages  from 1990 onwards. The petitioners assert that  they had  received numerous letters and grievances from  students with  Hindi  medium  background to press  for  this  instant petition.     When the application was moved before this Court on 17th April, 1989 this Court had issued notice.     We  have  examined the matter and have  heard  Mr.  L.M. Singhvi.  We are of the opinion that the prayers sought  for herein are not such which can be appropriately, properly and legitimately dealt with under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. The contention of the petitioners is, as mentioned hereinbefore, that pre-medical studies in medical and dental examination should be permitted in Hindi and other  regional languages and not in English alone, and the admission to the Institutions  should  not  be  refused  and/or  examinations should not be held in English alone if the examinees or  the entrants seek to appear in Hindi or other regional language.     Article  32  of  the Constitution  of  India  guarantees enforcement  of fundamental rights. It is well-settled  that the jurisdiction conferred on the Supreme Court under  Arti- cle  32  is  an important and integral part  of  the  Indian Constitution  but  violation of a fundamental right  is  the sine qua non for seeking enforcement of those rights by  the Supreme  Court.  In order to establish the  violation  of  a fundamental right, the Court has to consider the direct  and inevitable consequences of the action which is sought to  be remedied or the guarantee of which is sought to be enforced. Mr Singhvi, counsel for the petitioners, contends that under Article 29(2) of the Constitution no citizen shall be denied admission into any educational institution maintained by the State or receiving aid out of State funds on grounds only of religion, race, caste, language or any of them. He  contends that  by  not holding the test in Hindi  or  other  regional languages,  there is breach of Article 29(2). He also  draws our  attention  to Article 29(1) of the  Constitution  which enjoins  that  any section of the citizens residing  in  the territory  of  India or any part thereof having  a  distinct

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

language, script or culture of his own, shall have right  to conserve  the  same. It is difficult to accept that  in  not holding entrance examination in any particular language.  be it  Hindi or regional language, amounts to denial of  admis- sion  on the ground of language. Every educational  institu- tion has right to determine or set out its method of  educa- tion  and  conditions of examination  and  studies  provided these do not directly or indirectly have any casual  connec- tion with violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed  by the 592 Constitution.  It may be that Hindi or other  regional  lan- guages are more appropriate medium of imparting education to very  many and it may be appropriate and proper to hold  the examinations,  entrance  or  otherwise,  in  any  particular regional or Hindi language, or it may be that Hindi or other regional  language because of development of that  language, is  not  yet  appropriate medium to transmute  or  test  the knowledge  or  capacity  that could be had  in  medical  and dental disciplines. It is a matter of formulation of  policy by  the  State or educational authorities  in-charge-of  any particular  situation. Where the existence of a  fundamental right  has to be established by acceptance of  a  particular policy  or  a course of action for which there is  no  legal compulsion  or statutory imperative, and on which there  arc divergent views, the same cannot be sought to be enforced by Article 32 of the Constitution. Article 32 of the  Constitu- tion cannot be a means to indicate policy preference.     It  is difficult to contend that the  actions  following from  nonacceptance  of any policy  perspective,  amount  to direct and causal violation of the fundamental right of  the citizens  guaranteed under the Constitution of India.  Court is not the forum to adjudicate upon the questions of  policy unless such a policy is the direct mandate of the  Constitu- tion.     It  is  well-settled that judicial review, in  order  to enforce  a fundamental right, is permissible of  administra- tive, legislative and governmental action or non-action, and that  the rights of the citizens of this country are  to  be judged  by the judiciary and judicial forums and not by  the administrators  or executives. But it is equally  true  that citizens  of India are not to be governed by the  Judges  or judiciary.  If  the governance is illegal  or  violative  of rights and obligations, other questions may arise out wheth- er,  as mentioned hereinbefore, it has to be a policy  deci- sion  by  the  Government or the  authority  and  thereafter enforcement of that policy, the Court should not be, and  we hope would not be an appropriate forum for decision.     In the background of the facts and the circumstances  of the  case and the nature of controversy that has arisen,  we are  of the opinion that proper and appropriate remedy in  a situation  where enforcement of the right depends  upon  the acceptance  of a policy of examination for admission in  any particular  language to the Institution on that basis, is  a matter  of policy. Whether in particular facts and the  cir- cumstances  of  this  case admission to  medical  or  dental Institution  by  conducting examination in  Hindi  or  other regional languages would be appro- 593 priate  or desirable or not, is a matter on which debate  is possible  and  the  acceptance of one view  over  the  other involves a policy decision. It cannot be appropriately dealt with  by this Court, and order under Article 32 of the  Con- stitution in those circumstances would not be an appropriate remedy.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5  

   Counsel  for the petitioners drew our attention  to  the facts that notice had been issued to the respondent. That is true.  On a closer examination of this matter we are of  the opinion that in view of the controversy involved herein,  we should  not proceed with this application on that basis  any further.     Counsel for the petitioners then wanted to withdraw this writ petition. He is permitted to do so, and the writ  peti- tion  is dismissed as withdrawn but this will not  prejudice the rights, if any, of the petitioners, legal or  otherwise, to  take appropriate steps, if any, as they may be  advised, in accordance with law. N.P.V.                               Petition dismissed. 594