Mandatory Kannada education is violation of fundamental rights: Supreme Court

The Karnataka Government had filed an appeal against the division bench judgment of the Karnataka High Court in the Supreme Court.

An association of private schools had been fighting against the imposition of Kannada as a main language or medium of instruction in primary schools. Their advocate KV Dhananjaya argued that they were not questioning the greatness of Kannada or its primacy in the state. They maintained that the knowledge of English is very essential and the children should not be deprived of it. During the hearing, advocate Dhananjay, representing more than 1,800 private unaided English medium schools in Karnataka, told the Bench how language is not ingrained in the human brain and teaching in the mother tongue in primary classes cannot do much to improve career prospects.

"The Government wholly errs when it assumes that a parent's preference for English medium education is a rejection and devaluation of Kannada language. Kannada is a language of immeasurable greatness. A child could learn through English medium in his school and still be perfectly wedded to Kannada culture and hold it with the greatest respect and regard," Dhananjay said.

Citing the example of Nagaland where 90 per cent of the population is declared as Scheduled Tribes and English is the preferred medium of instruction, Dhananjay said, "Today, 51 per cent of all children in India in the primary education system are enrolled in Hindi medium. Then comes English medium, which has 11 per cent."

"If English cannot be protected by the courts because it did not originate in India, what about the religions of Islam and Christianity? These religions did not originate in India. Are not these two religions entitled to protection?" he questioned.

Countering his arguments, Karnataka Advocate General Ravi Varma Kumar stressed that the state had the Constitutional obligation to provide instructions to people in way of regulation.

Citing various provisions, Kumar told the Bench how important it was to protect minority rights and institutions. "Primary school language should be one's mother tongue and not English, for, English is an alien language," he said.

"The state has the power to regulate and the right to oppose restrictions is the right of the state," Kumar said, concluding his arguments.

According to 'Legal Junction' in 1982, Government of Karnataka issued an order thereby prescribing that Kannada shall be the sole first language from 1st 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, 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 1st to 4th 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.