Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 594 (UTT)

Nisar Ahamad Ansari v. State of Uttarakhand

2017-11-08

K.M.JOSEPH, V.K.BIST

body2017
JUDGMENT : K.M. Joseph, J. 1. Petitioner has filed this petition as a public interest litigant. The reliefs sought by him are as follows:- “(a) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus declaring Article 3 of the Uttarakhand Official Language Act 2009 is ultra vires of the Constitution of India (contained as Annexure No.4 to the writ petition). (b) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to select the second language for the Uttarakhand Official Language Act after conducting physical survey and data in the interest of peoples who speak concern languages in the State of Uttarakhand according to law.” 2. According to him, earlier there was a law known as ‘Uttar Pradesh Official Language Act 1951.’ There is an amendment of the said law carried out in 1984. After creation of the State of Uttarakhand, the Uttar Pradesh Official Language Act, 1951 was in force in the State of Uttarakhand. In the year 2009, the Uttarakhand Official Language Bill 2009 was presented before the House and it was passed and became a law. Under the same, Sanskrit is shown as the second official language, after providing Hindi as the official language. The grounds taken in the petition include the following:- “(a) There is no substantial population in the State of Uttarakhand, which speak Sanskrit. Less than 0.40 percentage people are speaking Sanskrit language in the State of Uttarakhand. (b) Before selecting Sanskrit as the second language in the Act known as Official Language Act in interest of people who speaks Sanskrit Language in the State of Uttarakhand, it never taken care to know how many people speak Sanskrit language in the State of Uttarakhand. (c) Another ground is that there is no preamble in the bill. (d) The State Government, it is contended, without conducting any survey or physical verification of the people who speak the Sanskrit language has given second place to Sanskrit language. 3. (c) Another ground is that there is no preamble in the bill. (d) The State Government, it is contended, without conducting any survey or physical verification of the people who speak the Sanskrit language has given second place to Sanskrit language. 3. Petitioner sought information under Right To Information Act and it is from the same that he has gathered the following information:- “On 1st July 2013 the information officer furnished the information to the petitioner and supplied a document relating to the population as per the language in State of Uttarakhand in 2001 and this document very much clear that in State of Uttarakhand less than 0.40 percentage people are speaking Sanskrit language in State of Uttarakhand.” 4. We heard Mr. G.D. Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Paresh Tripathi, Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. 5. The grounds for impugning a law made by the legislature are well settled. To successfully challenge a legislation, the petitioner may establish violation of any of the fundamental rights. The petitioner also may establish that the law has been made by an incompetent body, having regard to the legislative power in the Constitution. The law may also be challenged, if it is violative of any other constitutional provision such as Article 301 or 304 of the Constitution. From a perusal of the grounds, none of the grounds would entitle us to go into the question as set out in the writ petition. As regards the prayer 2 also, direction sought to the respondents to select the second language after physical verification is essentially asking for a direction to the legislature to conduct a survey and collect data in the interest of people, who speak the concerned language in the State of Uttarakhand. There cannot be a command to the legislature to make a law. Thirdly, we must also bear in mind that there is a presumption that the legislature knows the needs of its people and understands the felt necessities of the time. This presumption also would go against the petitioner. In such circumstances, we see no merit in the petition. The writ petition stands dismissed. No order as to costs.