Medium of Instruction in Primary School: Can it be made mandatory by the Government?

“Whether a student or a parent or a citizen has a right to choose a medium of instruction at primary stage?”

Most likely, one would answer this question affirmatively. The answer, however, may not be that easy. A division bench of the Supreme Court of India (“Supreme Court”) has, in a set of writ petitions [State of Karnataka v. The Associated Management of (Govt. Recognized unaided English medium) Primary and Secondary Schools & Ors], referred this question to a Constitutional Bench. Whatever will be the outcome of the case, the same will definitely have far reaching consequences on primary education in the country. 

The present case, by means of an appeal against the division bench judgment of the Karnataka High Court (“High Court”), had been filed by the State of Karnataka.

(Image Courtesy: Google Images)

Factual Background:

In 1982, Government of Karnataka (“State Government”) issued an order thereby prescribing that Kannada shall be the sole first language from 1^st standard of primary school itself. The order was challenged before the High Court, which held this as unconstitutional.  Thereafter, in 1989, State Government, vide an order (“1989 Order”), made “mother tongue” as the medium of instruction at the primary school level. Along with this, State Government made it obligatory for one to take “Kannada” as second language, if the same has not been chosen as the first language. The 1989 order was challenged before the Supreme Court in English Medium Students Parents Association vs.  The State of Karnataka & Ors, which consequently upheld it.

Following this, in 1994, State Government came up with another order (“1994 Order”) which, after revising the policy, made the ‘medium of instruction’ from 1^st to 4^th standard in all schools recognised by the State Government as either Kannada or mother tongue. Contending 1994 order as violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(a), 21, 29(2) and 30(1) of the Constitution of India (“Constitution”), writ petitions were filed before the High Court. By its order, full bench of the High Court quashed the disputed clause No. 2, 3, 6 and 8 of the 1994 Order with its application to schools other than the schools run or aided by the Government. It is against this order of the High Court that the State Government has preferred an appeal before the Supreme Court, i.e., the present case.

What is the issue?

On one hand, it is the State Government that wants schools recognised by it to impart primary education in mother tongue or Kannda. On the other hand, there is a group which [consisting of parents and the schools] wishes to impart such primary education in English language. If one does not want one’s wards to study in a particular language; or, if one wants them to study in a particular language, can such wish be declined by the State Government? This is, in fact, a very vital question.

On behalf of the State Government, arguments were made by P.P.Rao, Senior Advocate and an eminent constitutional lawyer. He argued that the High Court failed to notice the mandate behind Article 350A of the Constitution, and further argued that the High Court ignored the decision of Supreme Court in English Medium Students Parents Association vs.  The State of Karnataka & Ors

On the other hand, counsel for the respondent contended that English Medium Students Parents Association case did not go into the question of medium of instruction. Rather, it dealt only with question of mother tongue/Kannada as one of the language. However, Supreme Court, in the present petition, held that the English Medium Students Parents Association case dealt with the question pertaining to the “medium of instruction”.

In conclusion, following are the significant questions that will be decided by the Constitutional Bench:

(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, 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?