GUJARAT UNIVERSITY V. KRISHNA RANGANATH MUDHOLKAR, 1963

Spread the love

Post Views: 1,514

CITATION	1963 SCR Supp (1)112, 1963 AIR 703
DATE OF JUDGEMENT	21 February, 1962
COURT	Supreme Court
APPELLANT	The Gujarat University, Ahmedabad
RESPONDENT	Krishna Ranganath Mudholkar and others
BENCH	Shah, J.C., Sinha, Bhuvneshwar P. (CJ), Imam Syed Jaffer, Subbarao, K., Wanchoo, K.N., and Ayyangar, N. Rajgopala

INTRODUCTION:

In the case of Gujarat University vs. Krishna Ranganath was decided on the question of whether a university or any education institute could impose any language to impart education and take examinations, and whether such legislation was constitutionally void, in view of Entry 66 of List I of seventh schedule of the constitution, it was held by the court that a university cannot do so and hence the laws made by union will prevail on the basis of ‘harmonious construction’.

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:

Shrikant, the second respondent, completed his secondary school examination in Marathi medium in March,1961. Shrikant applied in Arts classes, with medium English, of St. Xavier’s College, affiliated with Gujarat University. He successfully completed the course in English medium and further applied for admission to Intermediate Arts classes in the medium English, he started preparing for university’s intermediate arts examination. He was then informed by the principal that according to the requirements of Gujarat University Act, 1949 and statutes 207, 208 and 209 adopted by the Senate of University, as amended in 1961, he cannot be permitted admission without the permission from university.

Shrikant’s father, the first respondent, sought permission from the vice- chancellor but was refused the same, resulting which he filed a writ of Mandamus in Gujarat High Court, requesting directions for university to treat sections 4(27), 18(i) (xiv) and 38 A as void and to treat any letters or circulars by the vice-chancellor in relation to medium as void in view of Entry 66 of List I of the constitution. The state and university filed different appeals to the Supreme Court contending on behalf of the university that Section 4 conferred the power to impose Gujrati and Hindi as the medium of education and examination and the sections in the question are valid.

ISSUES RAISED:

Two questions were raised in front of the Supreme Court for determination:

Whether the university, under the Gujarat University Act, 1949, was permitted to impose Gujarati and Hindi, or both, as the only medium of imparting education and taking examinations in affiliated colleges, and
In view of Entry 66 of List I of the Seventh Schedule, whether the legislation authorizing the University to impose such media was constitutionally valid.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

Appellants:

The High Court of Gujarat, in response to a request made on January 24, 1962, considered petitions for writs. Both the University and the State of Gujarat presented their arguments separately, with the endorsements of legality granted by the High Court according to which the University has the authority only to prescribe Gujarati or Hindi as one of the media of instruction and examination, and not as the exclusive mode to the exclusion of other languages.
The University’s Registrar rejected the proposal, even though Shrikant was allowed to use English as a medium for examinations but not for instruction, as stated in a different letter. The petitioners presented various arguments in their Writ Petition.
According to the University, Statutes 207 and 209 were lawfully established because the authority for doing so was explicitly provided by several provisions of section 4, and it was the Senate’s duty to exercise that authority as per section 18.

Respondents:

The petitioner challenged the University’s authority to mandate Gujarati or Hindi as the sole language of instruction, citing the powers granted by the Gujarat University Act, 1949, as amended by Act 4 of 1961.
The examination of whether the University has the authority to impose Gujarati or Hindi, or both, as the exclusive medium or media of instruction should focus on specific clauses of Section 4 of the Gujarat University Act, 1949. These clauses include (1), (2), (7), (8), (10), (14), (27), and (28). It is important to note that clause (1) grants the University the authority to “provide for instruction, teaching, and training in such areas of learning and courses of study as it may consider suitable in order to provide for research and diffusion of knowledge.”
The Constitution of India does not permit Parliament to legislate on the matter of the medium of instruction. When the Constitution was framed, there were several well-established languages in different regions of the country, and these were included in the Constitution’s Eighth Schedule. English served as the medium of instruction at all educational levels and as the official language of administration during that time. There was a general consensus that English should be gradually replaced at all levels, but this transition should occur gradually.

JUDGEMENT:

The majority bench was in favor of respondents. According to the court, the state did not have the power to make rules about higher education as the union has that power under Entry 66 of List 1, while the Entry 11 of List II gave state the power to make laws about the secondary education, the laws made by union will prevail in higher education system.

The court emphasized that the phrases “subject to” are added specifically to ensure that components that are not mandated and set aside by certain items on the list are not decided by the state government. Given that a specific language spoken in a region was designated by that item on the list, this demonstrates that the state assembly lacks the authority to enact legislation on this subject. This same power had been set forth in the Union list, namely item 66. When state legislatures pass such legislation, it overlaps with the authorities outlined in the Union list.

The Gujarat University Act, 1949, neither as originally enacted nor as amended by Act 4 of 1961, Clause (27) of Section 4 of the Act, which alone expressly dealt with the subject of the medium of instruction, when properly construed, made it clear that the University was not empowered to impose Gujarati or Hindi as the only language used for instruction and examination, and since no power was granted to the University the Senate could not exercise such a power.

The court further stated that Item 66 of List I cannot be interpreted narrowly and that the authority it bestows extends to all ancillary or subsidiary matters that can be fairly and reasonably understood by it, such as inequalities brought on by the adoption of a regional medium of instruction that causes a decline in standards in higher education.
Therefore, Item 11 of List II and Item 66 of List I must be harmoniously constructed, and in cases where they conflict, the power granted to the Parliament by Item 66 must take precedence over the power granted to State Legislatures by Item 11.

CONCLUSION:

In summary, the judgment in the Gujarat University vs. Krishna Ranganath case likely emphasized that the University’s authority to mandate Gujarati or Hindi as the exclusive medium of instruction should be exercised within the limits specified by the relevant clauses of the Gujarat University Act. Furthermore, the judgment may have acknowledged the necessity of a gradual shift from English to vernacular languages in educational institutions.

The principle of harmonious construction becomes significant in cases involving conflicts of laws. Education was initially under the jurisdiction of the state list until it was moved to the concurrent list through a parliamentary amendment in 1976. However, the central legislature does have the authority to enact laws concerning the standards applicable to higher education, as indicated in item 66. This is where the issue of repugnancy arises, and harmonious construction is the only viable solution.

REFERENCES: