2014 Supreme Court Judgment on ‘Linguistic Secularism’, Pg13

• Tamil Nadu CM M.K. Stalin has accused the Centre of imposing Hindi through the National Education Policy (NEP), allegedly threatening Tamil Nadu’s linguistic identity.

• The 2014 Supreme Court judgment in U.P. Hindi Sahitya Sammelan vs State of U.P. emphasized linguistic secularism and language accommodation, asserting that Hindi’s designation as the official language did not make it the ‘national language’.

• The Court ruled that Indian language laws were flexible and not rigid.

• It held that the objective of language laws was to secure linguistic secularism, accommodating the aspirations of different linguistic groups.

• Hindi was chosen as the ‘official language’, but the Court clarified that it could not be called the ‘national language’ as it was not spoken by all Indians.

• Regional languages like Bengali, Tamil, Marathi, and Gujarati had significant populations speaking them, sometimes more than Hindi in certain states.

• The Court cited Article 351, which imposes a duty on the Union government to develop Hindi for composite cultural expression but does not mandate its imposition.

• Article 29(1): Recognizes the right of linguistic minorities to conserve their script and culture.

• Article 19: Protects the freedom of speech and expression, which includes the choice of language for education.

• Article 30: Grants minority institutions the right to choose their medium of instruction.

• The Court referenced Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1924, U.S. Supreme Court), reinforcing that the state cannot dictate the language of instruction.

• The 1982 Allahabad High Court ruling in IIT Kanpur case clarified that Hindi is the official, not national language.

Mains Mock Question:

"Discuss the role of the Indian judiciary in protecting linguistic diversity. How does the Supreme Court’s stance on ‘linguistic secularism’ uphold constitutional values?"