Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 592 (MP)

Rumman Uddin v. State of M. P.

2020-05-19

RAJEEV KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA, SHEEL NAGU

body2020
ORDER Shrivastava, J. -- 1. Petitioner claiming probono publico cause has submitted before this Court that the present matter is arising out of inaction on the part of the respondents, whereby the respondents are not ensuring induction of Urdu language as subject in school education despite millions of Indians are speaking Urdu and Urdu is officially recognised as regional language of India. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that State of Rajasthan has introduced Urdu language in three schools. Most of the Urdu medium Government schools are only functional on papers. The overall scenario reflects that the language which has been able to secure its place in language in Constitution has failed to secure its place in elementary education. The petitioner has carried out various activities for upliftment of down-trodden class. The petitioner served for social awareness from time to time and has also volunteered in cleanliness of Kanthan River in Sironj area and has also performed appreciable role in ‘Shahar Sarkar Dwar Programme’ organized by Nagar Palika Parishad, Sironj and in various other social programmes. 3. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the Constitution of India has included a clause to protect minority languages as a fundamental right. It states “any section of the citizens residing in the territory of India or any part thereof having a distinct language, script or culture of its own shall have the right to conserve the same.” It is further submitted that the language policy of India provides guarantee to protect the linguistic minorities. 4. The petitioner by way of this petition in the nature of probono publico has sought for following reliefs :- (i) Respondents may kindly be directed to make Urdu a compulsory subject in all schools upto Class XII. (ii) Respondents be further directed to create posts in schools for appointment of teachers for teaching Urdu subject. (iii) Any other direction which this Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted.” 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the submissions. 6. Article 350A has been inserted by Constitution (7th Amendment) Act, 1956 in Chapter IV of the Constitution, wherein ‘Special Directives’ were incorporated. This Article is designed to implement one of the recommendations of the Reorganisation Commission, to safeguard the interests of linguistic minorities after the reorganisation of States. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the submissions. 6. Article 350A has been inserted by Constitution (7th Amendment) Act, 1956 in Chapter IV of the Constitution, wherein ‘Special Directives’ were incorporated. This Article is designed to implement one of the recommendations of the Reorganisation Commission, to safeguard the interests of linguistic minorities after the reorganisation of States. That means, this Article is incorporated in Special Directives in Chapter IV of the Constitution with intention to safeguard the interests of linguistic minorities after reorganisation of the States. 7. The Preamble of Indian Constitution is reiterated as under for ready reference :- “WE, THE PEOPLE OF INDIA, having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a SOVEREIGN SOCIALIST SECULAR DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC and to secure to all its citizens : JUSTICE, social, economic and political; LIBERTY of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship; EQUALITY of status and of opportunity; and to promote among them all FRATERNITY assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the Nation; IN OUR CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY this twenty-sixth day of November, 1949, do HEREBY ADOPT, ENACT AND GIVE TO OURSELVES THE CONSTITUTION.” . 8. The Preamble starts with WE, THE PEOPLE OF INDIA, having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a Sovereign Socialist Secular Democratic Republic. That means, Preamble is the source of Constitution, to secure to all it citizens Justice, social, economic and political; Liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship; Equality of status and of opportunity; it shows the ideals and aspirations of the Preamble and the objects which the Constitution-makers intended to be realised by its enacting provisions and “to promote among them all Fraternity assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the Nation.” Therefore, the Court may look into the object as recited in the Preamble when a doubt arises in its mind as to whether the narrower and interpretation ought to be placed on the language used in an enacting provision of the Constitution, which is capable of bearing both meanings. At the last of the Preamble, it is reflected that “We hereby adopt, enact and give to ourselves this Constitution. 9. The apex Court has held in various judgments that the Preamble of our Constitution should be interpreted as a part of the Constitution. At the last of the Preamble, it is reflected that “We hereby adopt, enact and give to ourselves this Constitution. 9. The apex Court has held in various judgments that the Preamble of our Constitution should be interpreted as a part of the Constitution. It should be used to take greater cognizance of the Preamble as setting forth the goals of our political society. It may be invoked to determine the ambit of Fundamental Rights and the Directive Principles. The ideals of socialism, secularism and democracy referred to in the Preamble which are elaborated in the enacting provisions of the Constitution are the basic structure of the Constitution. In short, in the matter of interpretation of the provisions of the Constitution as well as a statute, whenever constitutionality of any Statute has been challenged, the Court should rely on the objects embodied in the Preamble to the Constitution. 10. Our Constitution is not an ephemeral legal document embodying a set of legal rules for the passing hour. It sets out principles for an expanding future and is intended to endure for ages to come and consequently to be adapted to the various problems of human affairs. Hence, a purposive approach rather than a strict literal approach to interpretation should be adopted. It is relevant to reiterate here that a constitutional provision must be construed not in a narrow and restricted sense but in a wide and liberal sense. The Preamble to Constitution given way to anticipate and take account of changing conditions and purposes so that a constitutional provision does not get fossilised rather remains flexible enough to meet the newly emerging problems. Therefore, it can be said that the generous and purposive construction of Constitution is the basic object of the Preamble. 11. In the light of above, it can be said that the Constitution is an ongoing document, therefore, it should be interpreted liberally. It should be interpreted in the light of past experience. It is the duty of Courts to interpret the Constitution to fulfill the needs and aspirations of the people depending on the needs of the time. Interpretation of Constitution stands on a separate footing as compared to our Statute. Constitution unlike other Statutes, is meant to be a durable instrument to serve through a longer number of years without frequent revision. Interpretation of Constitution stands on a separate footing as compared to our Statute. Constitution unlike other Statutes, is meant to be a durable instrument to serve through a longer number of years without frequent revision. It is intended to serve the needs of the changing conditions of the future. Constitutional adjudications are not like other interpretations or decision-making. There are moral dimensions to every major constitutional case. The Constitution works on generalities, and good sense of interpretation. 12. In the Constitution, Fundamental Rights are kept in Chapter III of the Constitution whereas Special Directives are kept in Chapter IV of the Constitution. The fundamental rights are considered to be the heart and soul of the Constitution. The fundamental rights occupy a unique place in the lives of civilised society. They constitute the ark of the Constitution. Fundamental rights are those rights of citizens or those negative obligations of the State which do not permit encroachment on individual liberties, but it is made clear that the aforesaid provisions are not absolute in nature. Reasonable restrictions can be imposed on the fundamental rights. 13. Intention of Legislature behind enacting any provision in the Constitution be always gathered by considering the Preamble to the Constitution and the test of constitutionality of the provisions be looked into using object as recited in the Preamble. 14. As far as Article 19 of the Constitution is concerned, it is true that right under Article 19 is fundamental right, which runs as under :- 19. 14. As far as Article 19 of the Constitution is concerned, it is true that right under Article 19 is fundamental right, which runs as under :- 19. Protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech etc.— (1) All citizens shall have the right— (a) to freedom of speech and expression; (b) to assemble peaceably and without arms; (c) to form associations or unions; (d) to move freely throughout the territory of India; (e) to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India; and (f) omitted (g) to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business (2) Nothing in sub clause (a) of clause ( 1 ) shall affect the operation of any existing law, or prevent the State from making any law, in so far as such law imposes reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub clause in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of Court, defamation or incitement to an offence (3) Nothing in sub clause (b) of the said clause shall affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it imposes, or prevent the State from making any law imposing, in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India or public order, reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub clause (4) Nothing in sub clause (c) of the said clause shall affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it imposes, or prevent the State from making any law imposing, in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India or public order or morality, reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub clause (5) Nothing in sub clauses (d) and (e) of the said clause shall affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it imposes, or prevent the State from making any law imposing, reasonable restrictions on the exercise of any of the rights conferred by the said sub clauses either in the interests of the general public or for the protection of the interests of any Scheduled Tribe (6) Nothing in sub clause (g) of the said clause shall affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it imposes, or prevent the State from making any law imposing, in the interests of the general public, reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub clause, and, in particular, nothing in the said sub clause shall affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it relates to, or prevent the State from making any law relating to, (i) the professional or technical qualifications necessary for practising any profession or carrying on any occupation, trade or business, or (ii) the carrying on by the State, or by a corporation owned or controlled by the State, of any trade, business, industry or service, whether to the exclusion, complete or partial, of citizens or otherwise.” 15. From time to time the Supreme Court has filled in the skeleton of fundamental rights with soul and blood and made it vibrant. It is correct that interpretation of the Constitution has to be such as to enable the citizens to enjoy the rights guaranteed by Part III in the fullest measure. It is also settled that the fundamental rights are no longer interpreted as isolated protections which directly arise but collectively form a comprehensive test against the arbitrary exercise of State power in any area. The protection of fundamental right has, therefore, been considerably widened. By enacting fundamental rights and directive principles, which are negative and positive obligations of the State, the Constituent Assembly made it the responsibility of the Government to adopt a middle path between individual liberty and public good. Fundamental rights and directive principles have to be balanced. As Article 350-A of Constitution gives safeguard to the interest of linguistic minority and it is not included in Article 19 of the Constitution, therefore, benefit of Article 19 cannot be extended in the case at hand. 16. At this juncture, it is relevant to discuss Article 39 (f) of the Constitution of India in relation to the present petition. Directive Principle of State Policy is an instrument for special thing which is incorporated in Part IV of the Constitution. It is well known that various rights which can be said to be basic rights or human rights or primordial rights considered necessary for development of human personality are brought in Part III of the Constitution of India, i.e., “Fundamental Rights”. Constitutionmakers found that the fundamental rights were not enough to bring social and economic democracy in the country, hence Directive Principles were brought in Part IV of the Constitution. Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, fundamental rights are justiciable, however directive principles of State Policy are not justiciable in the Court of Law. Although Constitution-makers by Article 37 have made directive principles obligatory on the part of the governance. 17. Article 21-A of the Constitution of India speaks of Right to Education. Article 21-A provides free and compulsory education to children in the age group of six to fourteen years as a fundamental right in such a manner as the State may, by law, determine. 17. Article 21-A of the Constitution of India speaks of Right to Education. Article 21-A provides free and compulsory education to children in the age group of six to fourteen years as a fundamental right in such a manner as the State may, by law, determine. The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory education Act, 2009, represents consequential legislation envisaged under Article 21-A, wherein the provisions made are directive principles and relating Act has been enacted to safeguard the aforesaid. 18. Article 350-A of the Constitution of India is not couched in mandatory language. It facilitates for instructions to be given in mother-tongue at primary stage and runs as under :- “350A. Facilities for instruction in mothertongue at primary stage.— It shall be the endeavour of every State and of every local authority within the State to provide adequate facilities for instruction in the mother-tongue at the primary stage of education to children belonging to linguistic minority groups; and the President may issue such directions to any State as he considers necessary or proper for securing the provision of such facilities.” The aforesaid Article reflects that an endeavour shall be made by the State to provide adequate facilities for instruction to be given in the mother-tongue at the primary stage of education to the children belonging to linguistic minority groups. That means, Article 350A says that to the children belonging to specific linguistic minority groups instructions be given in their mothertongue. Thus the intent behind Article 350-A of the Constitution is to develop skill of specific linguistic minority groups children by communicating them with their mother-tongue. If the education is given in their mother-tongue, that would be more receptable for them. It does not direct that primary education be given in the mother-tongue of specific linguistic minority groups children. That means, this Article limits its intent by incorporating word ‘instruction’ and not ‘education’. 19. From the above discussion, it is clear that the provision made under Article 350A, which is incorporated in Chapter of ‘Special Directives’, is only to safeguard the interest of linguistic minority after reorganization of the State. It cannot be used to make it mandate, to incorporate any specific language in any specific syllabus, otherwise the object which is enshrined in Preamble of the Constitution will be frustrated. 20. It cannot be used to make it mandate, to incorporate any specific language in any specific syllabus, otherwise the object which is enshrined in Preamble of the Constitution will be frustrated. 20. In a recent judgment of this Court in Gaurav Pandey v. Union of India and others, passed in Writ Petition No. 17704/2018, decided on 26.2.2020, it is observed as under :- “11. The traditional rule of locus standi that a person whose right is affected alone can file a petition which has been laid down by the apex Court in various decisions. Now the Courts permit “Public Interest Litigations” at the instances of public spirited citizens for the enforcement of constitutional legal rights. 12. In the case of S.P. Gupta vs. Union of India, (AIR 1962 SC 149), the apex Court defined the term “Public Interest Litigation” in the Indian context. Thereafter, various prisoners of Bihar Jail had filed a petition before the Supreme Court Bench headed by Hon. Justice Bhagwati which was registered as Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar, ( AIR 1979 SC 1369 ), wherein the apex Court held that prisoners should be given benefits of free legal aid and speedy hearing. 13. In various judgments passed by the Apex Court, the issue of PIL was widely considered and PILs have achieved the place of importance in our legal system. See, Mumbai Kamgar Sangh v. M/s Abdulbhai Faizullabhai and others [ 1976 (3) SCC 832 ]; M.C. Mehta v. Union of India [ AIR 1987 SC 965 ]; Parmanand Katara v. Union of India [ AIR 1989 SC 2039 ]; Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan, [ (1997) 6 SCC 241 ]; and, Javed v. State of Haryana, [ (2003) 8 SCC 369 ]. 14. At this juncture, it is also relevant to mention here that to avoid inappropriate use of PIL, in the light of the judgment passed by apex Court in R & M Trust v. Kormangla Residents Vigilance Group, [ (2005) 3 SCC 91 ], following basic requirements are to be seen at the time of verifying the bonafides of a person, group, organization filing PIL before the Court having jurisdiction :- (i) Whether the petitioner is bonafide and whether he has/had filed any PIL for any other cause before any competent Court ? (ii) Whether the petition filed sounds of bonafide ? (iii) No petition was filed earlier for the same cause. (ii) Whether the petition filed sounds of bonafide ? (iii) No petition was filed earlier for the same cause. (iv) No petition was earlier decided by the Court for the same cause. (v) Whether cause relates to poor and needy persons in general suffering from violation of their fundamental rights ? (vi) The petition is not filed for personal gain or private profit or political motive or oblique consideration ? (vii) The petition is not vexatious petition under the colour of PIL . (viii) The petition is not filed for vindicating any personal grievance. (ix) The petition is not filed with intention to to abuse process of law. (x) Petitioner is not a proxy of others. (xi) The petition is not filed for extraneous motivation or for glare of publicity.” 21. Despite above, in the case at hand, it is apparent from the record produced by the petitioner, i.e., Anneuxres ‘A’ and ‘B’, that specific posts of Teacher for Urdu language have been sanctioned by the Lok Shikshan Sanchalnalaya, Madhya Pradesh. That means, sufficient endeavours have already been made by the Government with regard to Article 350-A of the Constitution of India and by this way, the mandate and spirit of Article 350-A of the Constitution is taken care of. 22. For the reasons and discussion made hereinbove, we are of the considered view that the instant petition neither contains bonafide cause nor is as per the object of the Constitution. It therefore being sans substance is hereby dismissed. ........................