http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: JAVED NIAZ BEG AND ANR.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT17/04/1980

BENCH: KRISHNAIYER, V.R. BENCH: KRISHNAIYER, V.R. REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J) SEN, A.P. (J)

CITATION:  1981 AIR  794            1980 SCC  (3) 734

ACT:      Language  formula-Competition   to  All   India   Civil Services-Paper I  on Indian  Languages made optional but not compulsory for  candidates hailing  from the  North  Eastern States/Union  Territories  of  Arunachal  Pradesh,  Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram  and Nagaland-Whether the Notification by the U.P.S.C.  dt. 17-3-79 discriminatory and offends Article 14 of the Constitution.      Dismissing the Writ Petitions, the Court

HEADNOTE:      HELD:  1.   Language  is   speech,   sentiment,   life, literature and other dear values rolled into one and that is why when  State  policy  on  language  goes  awry  explosive tensions erupt and Courts cannot allow legalism to over-ride realism  when  asked  to  quash  some  sensitive  linguistic formula  with   emotive  overtones.   The  realisation  that language  is  at  the  root  of  culture,  that  communities sometimes sacrifice  their very  existence for  survival  of their  mother   tongue  and   that  tolerance   and   mutual accommodation  on  the  linguistic  front  are  integral  to national integration  must persuade  the Court  to keep  its hands  off  the  delicate  strategic  policy  of  the  State relating  to   the  people’s   language.  Indeed,  the  rich diversity of India and the indispensable unity of the nation make it  a linguistic imperative that a spirit of generosity to territorial  communities  especially  minorities  without political pull, is of the quintessence of our Constitutional policy. [735 D, E-G]      2. Equality  before  the  law  is  the  kernel  of  our constitutional order.  But equality  is not  a static, rigid formal or  pedantic concept.  A sensitised  social scientist will  easily  agree  that  equality  is  dynamic,  flexible, creative, and  developmentally sensitive,  especially in the Third World conditions. [735 G-H, 736 A]      3. The  integrity of  India is  a  supreme  value.  The languages of India are dearest to the people who speak them. The North  Eastern  States/Union  Territories  of  Arunachal Pradesh,  Manipur,  Meghalaya,  Mizoram  and  Nagaland  have handicaps in  the matter of language. The Eighth Schedule to the Constitution  has set  out the  prominent  languages  of India which  are written  and spoken  by  large  populations

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

between Kashmir and Kanyakumari. But this rich tapestry, for its very  beauty, must  afford equal  opportunity for  those linguistically less  advanced groups  who  are  outside  the Eighth Schedule  and  may  suffer  serious  disabilities  if forced to  take examinations  in those languages. Logically, an option  for them to take or not to take Paper I on Indian Languages is  a facility  which puts  them on  par with  the rest. Once it is understood that equalisation is part of the dynamics of  equality, this  concession is not contravention of  equality   but  conducive   to  equality.   It  helps  a handicapped groups  and does not hamper those who are ahead. [736 H, 737 A-C] 735      The exemption  granted will  encourage disabled  groups into integrating  themselves with  the nation. More and more of successful candidates from these border areas coming into the mainstream  of our  Central Public Services is a tribute to national  integration and  democratic foundation.  On the other  hand,  Procrustean  equality  by  insistence  on  the linguistic ’have-nots’  being treated  on  a  par  with  the linguistic  ’haves’   is  productive   of  inequality.  Both equalisation  as   a  measure   of  equality   and  national integration  as  a  homogenisation  of  the  people  of  the country, require  the step  that has been taken. There is no discrimination in this. On the contrary there is a sensitive appreciation of  the situation  prevailing in  those  states which operates  for a better egalite among unequals. [737 C- E]

JUDGMENT:      ORIGINAL  JURISDICTION   :  Writ   Petition  Nos.  660- 661/1980.           (Under Article 32 of the Constitution).      R. K. Jain for the Petitioner.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by:      KRISHNA IYER,  J. Language  is speech, sentiment, life, literature and other dear values rolled into one and that is why when  State  policy  on  language  goes  awry  explosive tensions erupt and courts cannot allow legalism to over-ride realism  when  asked  to  quash  some  sensitive  linguistic formula with  emotive overtones.  This prefatory  caveat and its profound  implications must be appreciated before we eat the forbidden  fruit of  policy-making by  striking down the Central  Government’s  amendatory  notification  bearing  on language papers  for Central Services Examination or the all India Services Examination. The realisation that language is at the root of culture, that communities sometimes sacrifice their very existence for survival of their mother tongue and that tolerance  and mutual  accommodation on  the linguistic front are integral to national integration must persuade the court to keep its hands off the delicate strategic policy of the State  relating to  the people’s  language. Indeed,  the rich diversity  of India  and the indispensable unity of the nation make  it a  linguistic imperative  that a  spirit  of generosity to  territorial communities especially minorities in front  political pull  is  of  the  quintessence  of  our constitutional policy.  Challenges to  the language  formula prescribed by  the Government  of India in the rules for the combined competitive  examinations to the All India Services and the  like have  to be  viewed against this back-drop. In short, the  perspective which  we propose to adopt has to be perceptive of  the  linguistic  values  of  India  with  its plurality  of  tongues,  dialects  and  languages.  Equality

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

before the  law is  the kernel  of our constitutional order. But equality  is not  a static,  rigid, formal  or  pedantic concept. A  sensitised social  scientist will  easily  agree that   equality   is   dynamic,   flexible,   creative   and developmentally sensitive, especially 736 in  the   Third  World   conditions  like  ours.  Once  this imaginative approach  is adopted,  the submission of counsel will lose  all force.  Indeed, it will be counter productive of the  equality on  which it is formally founded as we will presently indicate.      These writ  petitions are  by candidates  of the  Hindi belt of India, who challenge certain amendments to the Rules for the  competitive examinations  to the All India Services and allied  categories. We  may extract the relevant part of the notification dated 17-3-1979:           "No. 13018/5/78-AIS(1):  The following  amendments      are  here  by  made  in  the  Rules  for  the  Combined      Competitive  Examination-Civil   Services  Examination,      1979 published  in Part  I Section  I of the Gazette of      India Extra  Ordinary dated 15th January 1979 vide this      Department’s Notification  No. 13018/5/78-AIS(I)  dated      the 15th January, 1979:-           (1)  x        x          x           x           x           (2)  x        x          x           x           x           (3)  Note (ii)  under  para  1  of  Section  II(B)      Appendix  I  is  re-numbered  as  Note  (iii)  and  the      following is inserted as Note (ii):-           "The  paper   I  on  Indian  Languages  will  not,      however, be  compulsory for candidates hailing from the      North Eastern  States/Union  Territories  of  Arunachal      Pradesh. Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram and Nagaland."      The gravamen of the charge against this notification is that candidates  hailing from the North Eastern States/Union Territories  of   Arunachal  Pradesh,   Manipur,  Meghalaya, Mizoram and  Nagaland are  not obligated  to take Paper I on Indian languages. Why should this discrimination be shown in their favour,  urges  counsel  for  the  Petitioners.  While favourable  treatment   for  women  and  children,  backward classes, scheduled  castes and scheduled tribe is sanctified by the  Constitution, the linguistic concession shown to the Indian brethren  in the remote regions we have just referred to  is   castigated   as   unconstitutional,   unequal   and invidiously discriminatory.  In the familiar jargon, counsel contends that  inequality among  equals is  the  intent  and effect of  the Notification  and the  vice of discrimination must prove lethal to its validity. We are not impressed with this submission.      The  integrity   of  India  is  a  supreme  value.  The languages of India are dearest to the people who speak them. It  is   notorious  that   the  North  Eastern  States/Union Territories of Arunachal Pradesh, 737 Manipur, Meghalaya,  Mizoram and  Nagaland have handicaps in the  matter   of  language.   The  Eighth  Schedule  to  the Constitution has  set out  the prominent  languages of India which are  written and  spoken by  large populations between Kashmir and  Kanyakumari. But  this rich  tapestry, for  its very  beauty,   must  afford  equal  opportunity  for  those linguistically less  advanced groups  who  are  outside  the Eighth Schedule  and  may  suffer  serious  disabilities  if forced to  take examinations  in those languages. Logically, an option  for them to take or not to take Paper I on Indian languages is  a facility  which puts  them on  par with  the rest. Once  we understand  that equalisation  is part of the

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

dynamics of  equality, this  concession is not contravention of  equality   but  conducive   to  equality.   It  helps  a handicapped group and does not hamper those who are ahead.      A realistic  appraisal of  the linguistic  landscape of the North  Eastern States  of our  motherland will  leave no thinking Indian  on doubt  that the  exemption granted  will encourage disabled  groups into  integrating themselves with the nation.  More and  more of  successful  candidates  from these border areas coming into the mainstream of our Central Public Services  is a  tribute to  national integration  and democratic  foundation.   On  the  other  hand,  Procrustean equality by  insistence on  the linguistic ’have-nots’ being treated on  a par with the linguistic’ ’haves’ is productive of inequality.  Both equalisation  as a  measure of equality and national  integration as  a homogenisation of the people of the  country, require  the step  that has  been taken. We discern no  discrimination.  On  the  contrary,  we  find  a sensitive appreciation  of the situation prevailing in those States and operates for a better egalite among unequals.      While we dismiss these writ petitions, we hope that the objective of the Notification will be fulfilled in the years ahead by  more and more of our brothers and sisters from the frontier States  participating in national administration at the civil services level. S.R.                                    Petitions dismissed. 738