THE GUJARAT UNIVERSITY, AHMEDABAD V/S KRISHNA RANGANATH MUDHOLKAR AND ORS 1963 

CITATION	1963 SCR Supp (1)112, 1963 AIR 703
DATE OF JUDGEMENT	21.02.1962
COURT	THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
APPELLANT	The Gujarat University, Ahmedabad
RESPONDENT	Krishna Ranganath Mudholkar and Ors.
BENCH	B.P. Sinha, C.J., J.C. Shah, K. Subba Rao, K.N. Wanchoo, N. Rajagopala Ayyangar and Syed Jaffer Imam, JJ.

INTRODUCTION: 

The case of Gujarat University, Ahmedabad v. Krishna Ranganath Mudholkar concerns the exclusive rule of the university to limit the medium of education. In the course of the judgement, the court even discussed the central legislative control over the state legislative authority under item 11 of List II under the Seventh schedule. 

FACTS OF THE CASE 

Shri Krishna Madholkar’s son Shrikant did his Secondary School Certificate exam conducted in March 1960 by the State of Bombay he was instructed and gave exams in Marathi medium (mother-tongue of Shrikant). Later, the son of the respondent enrolled in St. Xavier’s College, which is associated with the University of Gujarat. He successfully completed his first-year arts program in English as the medium of instruction. When he applied for the Intermediate arts examination to be conducted in English, the college’s principal explained that, in accordance with the Gujarat University Act, 1949, and Statutes 207, 208, and 209 established by the University’s senate and amended in 1961, he could not be granted permission for English medium classes.

In response to this situation, Shrikanth’s father, Shri Krishna Madholkar, approached the Vice-chancellor, seeking permission for Shrikanth to attend English medium classes. However, the college’s Registrar declined the request for English medium classes but allowed Shrikanth to take the examinations in the English medium.

ISSUES RAISED 

1. The first issue pertains to whether the Gujarat University, as authorized by the Gujarat University Act, 1949, has the legal authority to enforce Gujarati, Hindi, or both languages as the exclusive mediums of teaching and evaluation within affiliated colleges.
2. The second issue involves a consideration of whether such a mandate imposed by the University would contravene Entry 66 of the Constitution’s List I, Seventh Schedule. This constitutional entry relates to matters under the exclusive jurisdiction of the central government and may have implications for the University’s language policy.

CONTENTIONS OF APPELANT

1. Legitimacy of Statutes 207 and 209: The appellants argued that Statutes 207 and 209 were legitimately promulgated by the University. They emphasize that the authority to enact these statutes was explicitly granted by several provisions of Section 4 of the Gujarat University Act, and it was within the Senate’s responsibility to exercise this power under Section 18. The appellants contend that the University acted within its statutory authority in imposing these statutes.
2. Scope of University’s Authority: The appellants argued that the University had the legal authority to prescribe Gujarati or Hindi in Devanagari script as media of instruction and assessment. They cited the relevant provisions of Section 4, which they believe empower the University to set down Gujarati or Hindi as a medium of guidance and assessment in educational institutions, even those not maintained by the University. They assert that the University had the discretion to promote the study of these languages.
3. Medium of Instruction: The appellants contended that the University had the power to specify Gujarati or Hindi as one of the mediums of instruction and assessment. They argued that there was no legal requirement for the University to make these languages the sole mode of instruction and assessment, excluding other languages. They emphasize the flexibility granted by the law.
4. Constitutional Authority and Validity: The appellants dispute the High Court’s finding that the stipulation to Clause 27 of Section 4, as amended by Act 4 of 1961, encroached upon Entry 66 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. They assert that the State had the legislative competence to enact this provision. They also challenge the High Court’s determination that the Statutes 207 and 209 were invalid and void on constitutional grounds.
5. Protection of Minority Rights: The appellants contest the High Court’s conclusion that the imposition of exclusive language mediums and the associated statutes violated Articles 29(1) and 30(1) of the Constitution, which protect the rights of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice. They argue that the University’s actions were within the bounds of the Constitution and did not infringe upon minority rights.

CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENT

1. Statutory Authority: The Gujarat University Act, 1949, as amended, provides the University with unequivocal statutory authority to determine the medium of instruction. Section 4, Clause (1) of the Act empowers the University to “provide for instruction, teaching, and training in such areas of learning and courses of study as it may consider suitable.” This grant of authority clearly encompasses the University’s discretion to decide the medium of instruction in alignment with its educational objectives.
2. Academic Autonomy: The principle of academic autonomy is a cornerstone of higher education. Universities are entrusted with the responsibility of making informed decisions about their academic policies. This includes the critical choice of the medium of instruction. Granting the University the freedom to make these choices ensures that academic decisions are made by those with the expertise and experience to do so effectively.
3. Constitutional Compatibility: The choice of Gujarati or Hindi as the medium of instruction can be seen as promoting the rich linguistic diversity of India while respecting the Constitution’s Eighth Schedule, which recognizes various languages. This decision aligns with the broader goal of safeguarding and nurturing regional languages, which is in harmony with the constitutional ethos.
4. Intent: The legislature, in the interest of higher education, has rightfully bestowed the power to determine the medium of instruction upon the University. This decision is not arbitrary but is a result of careful consideration by representatives of the state’s intelligentsia who govern the University. They are best positioned to make informed decisions that benefit the education system in Gujarat.
5. Section 38A: Section 38A of the Act, which pertains to the enforcement of the University’s authority to prescribe an exclusive medium of instruction, is entirely legitimate if the University possesses such a right under the Act. This section merely operationalizes the University’s authority and ensures its effective implementation.
6. Gradual Transition: It’s worth noting that the transition to a specific language as the exclusive medium of instruction need not be sudden or disruptive. The University can adopt a gradual approach, taking into consideration the needs and concerns of students and faculty. This allows for a smoother transition while ensuring that the University’s educational objectives are met.

JUDGEMENT

The Supreme Court has rejected the appeal and affirmed the ruling of the Gujarat High Court. The phrase “subject to” used in that item makes it evident that the State Legislature is prohibited from enacting legislation concerning matters excluded by that item. Given that imposing a regional language was exempted, it was concluded that the assertion that legislation pertaining to the language of instruction in higher education and other educational directives must fall under Item 11 of List II in the Seventh Schedule of the Indian Constitution was incorrect.

CONCLUSION

• Article 350A of the Constitution mandates that every state and local government provide elementary education in the mother language to linguistic minority children. The term “mother tongue” here refers to the language spoken by a linguistic minority group in a state, decided by the child’s parent or guardian.
• It’s important to note that the Constitution doesn’t equate a child’s mother tongue to their comfort language. Students, parents, and citizens have the right to choose the primary language of instruction, per Article 19, subject to certain limitations.
• Article 29(1) preserves the right of citizens with a distinct language, script, or culture to protect their identity, and Article 30(1) grants minority groups the right to establish and manage their educational institutions.

However, there’s a question about whether the Court might have erred by prioritizing fundamental rights over expert judgment in education.

REFERENCE

Manupatra — MANU/SC/0078/1962

This Case summary is written by Pulugam Devaki, Intern at Legal Vidhiya.