Union of India & Ors Vs. Murasoli
Maran [1976] INSC 314 (6 December 1976)
RAY, A.N. (CJ) RAY, A.N. (CJ) BEG, M.
HAMEEDULLAH SINGH, JASWANT
CITATION: 1977 AIR 225 1977 SCR (2) 314 1977
SCC (2) 416
ACT:
Constitution of India, Articles 254, 343,
344, 349 and 351--"Compulsory in service training" in Hindi as part
of duty to all Central Government employees-Presidential Order dated 27th April
1960--Validity--Official Languages Act 1963, s. 3(4), scope of.
HEADNOTE:
Presidential Orders dated 27th April 1960 and
the various orders and circulars issued pursuant thereto by the Home Ministry,
P & T Department and Railway Board, compelling attendance in "Hindi in
service training" as part of duty and providing for penal consequences for
non-attendance were quashed by the Madras High Court as being inconsistent with
s. 3 of the Official Languages Act, 1963 as amended by Act 1 of 1968 which was
law made by Parliament under Art. 343(3) of the Constitution.
In appeals to this Court on certificates, the
appellant--Union contended: (i) The instructions were aimed at promoting the
policy of the constitutional revisions that Hindi should be the official
language of the Union; (ii) No employee was placed at a disadvantage even if
one could not qualify oneself in Hindi because no penalty was prescribed for an
employee who did not attain any particular standard;
and (iii) The Government was within its
rights to issue orders obliging its employees to take training in Hindi
language, so that ultimately when Hindi became the language of the Union they
could perform their duty in an efficient and smooth manner. The respondents
reiterated their stand, namely, (i) Article 343 of the Constitution is transitional
and directions of the President are limited to the period of 15 years from the
commencement of the Constitution in view of the provision in Articles 343,
344(1), 344(2)(a) and (b), 344 (3), 344 (6) indicating that directions should
relate to purposes of sub clauses (a) to (e) of Article 344(2); (ii) When the Official
Languages Act 1963 embodied the field covered by Parliamentary legislation, the
Presidential Order would not have any effect; (iii) The Presidential Order is
inconsistent with s. 9 (4) of the Official Languages Act 1963 as amended in 1968
and to that extent void; and (iv) Under s. 3(4) of the Official Languages Act
1963, persons were not to be placed at a disadvantage on the ground that they
do not have proficiency in both the languages, namely, English and Hindi.
Dismissing the writ petitions and allowing
the appeals,
HELD: (1) The Presidential Orders dated 27th
April 1960 and the various orders and circulars issued by Home Ministry, P
& T Department and Railway Board pursuant thereto are valid. [323H] (2) The
Presidential Order was validly made and there has been and can be no challenge
to it. The President Order keeps in view the ultimate object to make the Hindi
language as official language, but takes into note the circumstances prevailing
in our country and considers it desirable that the change should be a gradual
one and due regard should be given to the just claims and the interests of
persons belonging to the non-Hindi speaking areas. The purpose of the Presidential
Order is to promote the spirit of the Hindi language and to provide the Central
Government employees the facilities to take training in Hindi language when
they are in service. [322F-G] (3) The provisions in Art. 344 indicate that if
there is a Second Commission at the expiration of ten years from the
commencement of the Constitution, the President, may after consideration of the
report, issue directions at the end of fifteen years. The provisions contained
in Art. 344(6) are not exhausted by using it once. The President can use it on
more than one occasion. Further the effect of the power used cannot be said to
be exhausted on the expiry of fifteen 315 years. The Presidential Order which
was issued in 1960 continues to be in force and cannot be said to have exhausted
itself at the end of fifteen years from the commencement of the Constitution.
It would be strange that the steps necessary for the change should be given up
at the. expiry of fifteen years because what is said to be a switch over from English
to Hindi has not been possible and Parliament provided by law for the continued
use of the English language for particular purposes specified in that law.
[322D-F] (4) Article 344 is enacted for the
purpose of achieving the object of replacing English by Hindi within a period
of 15 years. The ultimate object is provided in Art. 351 which fulfils the
object of the spirit and development of the Hindi language and enlargement of
the composite culture of India, Articles 343 and 344 deal with the process of
transition. Article 343(3) provides merely for extension of time for the use of
English language after the period of 15 years. The progressive use of the Hindi
language is thereby not to be impaired. Extending the time for the use of the
English language does not amount to abandonment of progress in the use of Hindi
as the official language of the Union.
[321G-H, 322A-B] (5) Article 344(6) provides
that notwithstanding anything in Art. 343, the President may after
consideration of the report of the committee issue directions. The nonobstante
clause in Art. 344(6) does not operate only against Art. 344(1) and (2) but
against the entire Art. 344 for the reason that so far as transition is
concerned, the directions under Art. 344(6) may continue. Article 344(6) takes
this objective and is intended to determine the pace of progress and to achieve
the same. [322B-C] (6) The High Court failed to see the sequences of the
Presidential Order and the Official Languages Act. It is erroneous to suggest
that the Presidential Order of 1960 became invalid after the passing of the
Act. The Act merely continues the use of English language in addition to Hindi.
The Act does not provide anything which can
be interpreted as a limitation on the vower of the President to issue
directions under Art. 344(6) of the Constitution. The Presidential Order has no
inconsistency with the Act. The non-obstante provision in Art. 344(6) empowers
the President. [322G-H, 323A-B] (7) Parliament is legislating in a different
field. The field is the permissible use of English language in addition to
Hindi during the period following 15 years because the change to Hindi could
not be complete. The trasitional period has exceeded 15 years. The Presidential
Order keeps in view the steps to replace the use of English in Hindi and the
application of the Act and the Presidential Order is in different fields and
has different purposes. The Official Languages Act is to continue the use of
English language after the expiry of 15 years, but Presidential Order, on the
other hand is, to provide for the progressive use of Hindi language. It confers
an additional qualification on those who learn Hindi and does not take away anything
from the Government employees. Prizes are offered and there may be increase in
pay. These are incentives. The measures taken for enforcement of provisions for
learning Hindi by providing for absence from classes as breach of discipline
and insisting on appearance at the examinations are steps in aid of fulfilling
the object of what is described as in service, training in Hindi-language. Such
enforcement of attendance in examinations for proficiency if necessary for
completion of training. The contention that the Presidential. Order conflicts
with s. 3(4) of the Act is unsound.
The "In service-training" of the
employees is during hours of duty and free of cost. Even if they fail, there is
no penalty. There is no treatment of unequals alike.[323 B-H] [323B-F] Murasoli
Maran etc. v. Union of India & Ors. 1972 Madras 40 reversed.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal
Nos. 1448 & 1587 of 1971.
(From the Judgment and Decree dated the
29-1-1971 of the Madras High Court in Writ Appeal No. 119/70 and Writ Petition
No.. 471/70) Lal Narain Sinha, Solicitor General, 8. N. Prasad (in CA No.
1448/71) and Girish Chandra, for the appellants.
316 K.K. Venugopal and K.R. Nambiar for the
respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RAY, C.J. These appeals
are by certificate against judgment and order dated 29 January 1971 of the High
Court of Madras.
The respondents filed writ petitions in the
High Court for a declaration that the Presidential Order dated 27 April 1960,
the Railway Board orders dated 25 January 1962, Memoranda or Orders of the
Ministry of Home Affairs dated 3 March 1966 and the Posts & Telegraph
Department Orders dated 6 February 1965, 4 December 1965. 23 September 1967, 19
June 1968 and 9 February 1970 are void.
The Presidential Order dated 27 April 1960
was inter alia as follows :-XXX XXX XXX
5. Training of administrative personnel in
the Hindi Medium ..........
(a) In accordance with the opinion expressed
by the Committee in service training in Hindi may be made obligatory for
Central Government employees who are aged less than 45 years. This will not
apply to employees below Class III Grade, industrial establishtments and
work-charged staff. In this Scheme no penalty should be imposed for failure to
attain the prescribed standard by the due date. Facilities for Hindi training
may continue to be provided free of costs to the trainees.
(b) Necessary arrangements may be made by the
Ministry of Home Affairs for the training of typists and stenographers employed
under the Central Government in Hindi typewriting and stenography.
(c) The Ministry of Education may take early
steps to evolve a standard key-board for Hindi typewriters.
XXX XXX XXX
7. Recruitment to local offices of Central
Government Department :(c) The Committee has agreed with the recommendation of
the Commission that the Union Government would be justified in prescribing a
reasonable measure of knowledge of Hindi language as a qualification for
entering into their services provided a sufficiently long notice is given and
the measure of linguistic ability prescribed is moderate, any deficiency being
made good by further in service training.
This recommendation may be applied for the
present in regard to recruitment in the local offices of the Central Government
Departments in the Hindi speaking areas only and not in the local offices in
non-Hindi speaking areas.
The directions under (a), (b) and (c) above
will not apply to offices under the Indian and Audit and Accounts Department
....
" 317 The Railway Board Notification
dated 25 January 1962 inter alia stated as follows:
"The progress of Hindi training of staff
on the Railways is very slow and the facilities provided by the Government are
not being utilized properly. Immediate steps should be taken to correct the
position and ensure that the facilities offered by the Government are not
misused. Since training in Hindi is obligatory and is being imparted during
working hours, wilful absence from Hindi classes should be treated as absence
from duty and dealt with as such." The Home Ministry Memorandum dated 3
March 1966 inter alia stated as follows: In service training in Hindi was made
obligatory for all Central Government Employees below 45 years of age,
excluding employees below Class III Grade, industrial establishments and work charged
staff. The programme for facilitating the progressive use of Hindi should be
completed by March 1966. Steps for the fuller use of facilities under the Hindi
Teaching Scheme were being laid down. The facilities indicated that employees
working in a Ministry should get themselves enrolled in the Hindi classes and
failure to attend these classes should be discouraged and the obligatory
training should include their appearance at the examinations.
One of the Posts & Telegraph's Orders
referred to above is set out as a type. This Order provides teaching facilities
and free training in Hindi during office hours.
One of the petitioners in the High Court was
Murasoli Maran. He described himself as a sitting Member of Parliament and
stated that he had duty to represent the people.
The locus standi of the petitioner was
challenged in the High Court'. The High Court rightly held that the petitioner
could not maintain the petition in the High Court.
The petitioner in the other writ petition
described himself as Assistant Manager in the Office of the PostMaster General,
Madras. His locus standi was not challenged.
The petitioners contended in the High Court
that the Presidential Order ceased to have any effect because the Second
Language Commission was not appointed as contemplated under Article 344 of the
Constitution. The second contention was that the Presidential Order and other
orders, circulars and memoranda issued pursuant thereto were inconsistent with
section 3 of the Official Language Act 1963, as amended, inasmuch as they
placed persons like the petitioners in a disadvantageous position on account of
their having no proficiency in the Hindi language.
The two relevant Articles in the Constitution
are Articles 343 and 344. Broadly stated, Article 343 provides as follows. The
official language of the Union shall be Hindi in Devanagari script. For a
period of 15 years from the commencement of the Constitution, the English
language shall continue to be used for all the official purposes of the Union
for which it was being used immediately before such commencement. The proviso
to Article 343 (2) is that the President may, 318 during the said period, by
order authorise the use of the Hindi language in addition to the English
language. Parliament may by law provide for the use, after the said period of
15 years,of the English language for such purposes as may be specified in the
law.
Article 344 is as follows. The President
shall, at the expiration of five years from the commencement of the Constitution
and thereafter at the expiration of ten years from such commencement, by order
constitute a Commission. It shall be the duty of the Commission to make
recommendations to the President as to (a) the progressive use of the Hindi
Language for the official purposes of the Union; (b) restrictions on the use of
the English language for all or any of the official purposes of the Union; (c)
the language to be used for all or any of the purchases mentioned in Article
348.
Article 344 further provides that a Committee
shall be constituted and it shall be the duty of the Committee to examine the
recommendations of the Commission constituted under Article 344(1) and to
report to the President their opinion thereon.
Article 344(6), provides that notwithstanding
anything in Article 343, the President may, after consideration of the report
referred to in clause (5), issue directions in accordance with the whole or any
part of that report.
Article 351 provides that it shall. be the
duty of the Union to promote the spread of the Hindi language, to develop it so
that it may serve as a medium of expression for all the elements of the
composite culture of India.
In exercise of the posers conferred on the
Parliament by Article 343(3) of the Constitution, the Parliament passed the Official
Languages Act 1963. Section 3 of the Act provided us follows :-"Notwithstanding
the expiration of the period of fifteen years from the commencement of the
Constitution, the English language may, us from the appointed day, continue to
be used, in addition to Hindi,-(a) For all the official purposes of the Union
for which was ,,being used immediately before that day, and (b) for the
transaction of business in Parliament." In 1968, the Parliament amended
the Official Languages Act 1963 and sub-section (4) was added to section 3. Subsection
(4) as introduced by Amendment in 1968 is as follows:
"Without prejudice to the provisions of
sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) or subsection (3), the Central Government
may, by rules made under section 8, provide for the language or languages to be
used for the official purpose of the Union, including the working of any
Ministry, Department, Section or Office, and in making such rules, due
consideration shall be given to the quick and efficient disposal 319 of the
official business and the interests of the general public and in particular,
the rules so made shall ensure that persons serving in connection with the
affairs of the Union and having proficiency either in Hindi or in the English language
may function effectively and that they are not placed at a disadvantage on the
ground that they do not have proficiency in both the languages." On 7 June
1955, the Official Language Commission was appointed by the President under
Article 344(1) of the Constitution. The Commission submitted its report in
which the arrangements made by Government of India for training their employees
on voluntary basis in Hindi Language was reviewed.
The Commission was of opinion that if
experience showed that no adequate results were forthcoming under such optional
arrangements, necessary steps should be taken by the Government of India making
it obligatory on Government servants to qualify themselves in Hindi within the
requisite period, to the extent requisite for the discharge of their duties.
The recommendations of the Official Language
Commission were placed before a Committee of the Parliament as envisaged under
Article 344(4) of the Constitution. The Committee was of opinion that the
Government should prescribe obligatory requirements on Government servants to
qualify themselves in Hindi language.
The President of India after considering the
report of the Committee, issued the Presidential Order dated 27 April 1960 to
which a reference has already been made. Training in Hindi was made obligatory
for employees.
Pursuant to the Presidential Order of 27
April 1960, the Home Ministry issued an office Memorandum dated 3 March
1966.Reference has already been made to that order. The Home Ministry Order made
it obligatory for Government employees below 45 years of age excluding certain
classes of employees to have, what is described, "In service training in
Hindi". The Memorandum stated that 20 per cent of the employees should be
deputed to attend the Hindi classes every year. The Memorandum also stated that
failure to attend these classes should attract penalties.
The obligatory training was to include their
appearance at the examinations.
Pursuant to the Home Ministry instructions,
the Post-Master General, Madras, under the directions of the Director General
of posts and Telegraph, issued a Memorandum referring 10 the Presidential Order
of 27 April 1960 and the Home Ministry Order dated 3 March 1966. The Posts
& Telegraph Memorandum made "In service training in Hindi"
compulsory for all Central Government employees who were aged less than 45 as
on 1 January 1961. The Memorandum further outlined the facilities and
incentives provided for the Hindi teaching. Specific mention was made that
attendance to Hindi class was compulsory and was treated as part of duty.
Non-compliance of Government Orders was to be treated as breach of discipline.
Solicitor General contended on behalf of the
appellant that the instructions were aimed at promoting the policy of the
constitutional 320 provisions that Hindi should be the official language of the
Union It was said that with a view to achieving the objective the employees of
the Government of India ought to be trained in Hindi language. It was also said
that no one was placed at a disadvantage even if one could not qualify oneself
in Hindi because no penalty was prescribed for an employee who did not attain
any particular standard. It was submitted that the Government was within its
right to issue orders obliging its employees to take training in the Hindi
language, so that ultimately when Hindi became the language of the Union, they
could perform their duties in an efficient and smooth manner.
The High Court upheld the contention of the
respondents and held that the directions were inconsistent with section 3 of
the Official Languages Act 1963. The High Court held that the penal
consequences which followed if a Government employee absented himself from
Hindi Classes had the effect of putting such an employee at a disadvantage.
Counsel for the respondents contended first
that under Article 343(3), Parliament may by law provide for the use, after the
period of fifteen years, of the English language for such purposes as may be
specified in the law. Emphasis was placed on Article 343 of the Constitution to
submit that Article 343 is transitional and directions of the President are
limited to the period of 15 years from the commencement of the Constitution.
The following reasons were advanced:
The fact that the Commission has to be
constituted under Article 344 at the expiration of five years from the commencement
of the Constitution. namely, 1955 and thereafter at the expiration of ten years
from the commencement of the Constitution, namely, 1960 and not thereafter,
would show that the directions issued by the President under Article 344(6) are
limited to the period of fifteen years from the commencement of the
Constitution. The position which would prevail after 1965 would not be within
the knowledge of the Commission of the years 1955 and 1960 because the
Parliament has to decide the same. The recommendations of the Commission and
the directions of the President cannot relate to the period after 1965.
By reason of Article 344(2)(a) and (b) the
recommendations of the Commission as to the progressive use of the Hindi
language and the restrictions on the use of the English language are matters to
come within the period of fifteen years from the commencement of the Constitution.
Article 344(3) of the Constitution which
requires the Commission to have due regard to the claims of non-Hindi speaking
persons in public services, indicates that these claims cart be protected only
when both English and Hindi language continue.
Article 344(6) which states that
notwithstanding anything in Article 343, the President may issue directions
should be related to purposes of sub-clauses (a) to (e) of Article 344(2).
321 Council for the respondent relied on
Article 349 in support of the contention that the affect of Article 349 is that
after fifteen years from the commencement of the Constitution, if Parliament
desires to substitute Hindi for English it can do so under unfettered
discretion but during fifteen years it can substitute Hindi for English
language by Presidential directions.
The second broad contention on behalf of the
respondent was that the OffiCial Languages Act 1963 (referred to as the Act)
occupies a field covered by Parliamentary Legislation.
Reference was made to Objects and Reasons of
the Official Languages Act 1963, to show that acquiring of proficiency in Hindi
is the principal purpose. Section 3(4) of the Act which was introduced and
inserted by Amendment in 1968, was said by the respondent to cover that area
and inasmuch as the Official Languages Act speaks of rules and the same being
laid before Parliament that is the only mode of directions. In other words, it
was said that the Presidential Order would not have any effect when the
Official Languages Act occupied the field.
The third head of submissions was that the
Presidential Order is inconsistent with section 3(4) of the Act. It was said in
the High Court that if the Presidential Order was inconsistent with section 3
(4) of the Act it would to that extent be void. It was stressed that Under
section 3(4) of the Act, persons were not to be placed at a disadvantage on the
ground that they do not have proficiency in both the languages, namely, English
and Hindi.
In the forefront stands Article 343 which
states that the official language of the, Union shall be Hindi in Devanagari
script. Article 351 states that it shall be the duty of the Union to promote
the spread of the Hindi language, to develop it so that it may serve as a
medium of expression for all the elements of the composite culture of India and
to secure its enrichment by assimilating without interfering with its genius,
the forms, style and expressions used in Hindustani and in the other languages
of India specified in the Eighth Schedule. The original calculation of the
framers of the Constitution was that for a period of fifteen years the English
language should be used for all official purposes. That is why two Commissions
were contemplated under Article 344--one in 1955 and one in 1960. The
provisions of Article 344 indicate that it shall be the duty-of the Commission
to make recommendations to the President as to the progressive use of the Hindi
language. The provisions of the Constitution indicate the progress towards the
use of Hindi language.
It is in this context that Article 344 is
enacted for the purpose of achieving the object of replacing English by Hindi
within a period of fifteen years. Article 343(3) states that Parliament may by
law after the period of fifteen years provide for the use of. English language.
Although the Constitution considered the period of 15 years for replacing
English the Constitution also found that it might not be possible to complete
it. Therefore, Article 343(3) provides merely for extension of time for the use
of English language after the period of 15 years. The progressive use of the
Hindi language is thereby ,not to be impaired. Extending the time for the use
of the English 322 language does not amount to abandonment of progress in the
use of Hindi as the official language of the Union.
Comparing clauses (2) and (3) of Article 343
it will be noticed that while English is permitted to be continued for all
official purposes for which it was being used clause (3) contemplated that
having regard to the progress made Parliament, if necessary will choose the
purpose for which the use of the English language might be continued.
Article 344(6) provides that notwithstanding
anything in Article 343, the President may, after consideration of the report
of the Committee referred to in clause (5), issue directions. The non-abstante
clause in Article 344(6) does not operate on1y against Article 344(1) and (2)
but against the entire Article 344 for the reason that so far as transition is
concerned the directions under Article 344(6) may continue. Article 343 and 344
deal with the processes of transition. The ultimate aim is provided in Article
351 which fulfils the object of the spread and development of the Hindi
language and enrichment of the composite culture of India. Article 344(6) takes
into account this objective and is intended to determine the pace of progress
and to achieve the same.
The provisions in Article 344 indicate that
if there is a second Commission at the expiration of ten years from the
commencement of the Constitution, the President may, after consideration of the
report issue directions at the end of fifteen years. The provisions contained
in Article 344(6) are not exhausted by using it once. The President can use it
on more than one occasion. Further the effect of the power used cannot be said
to be exhausted on the expiry of fifteen years. The Presidential Order which
was issued in 1960 continues to be in force and cannot be said to have
exhausted itself at the end of 15 years from the commencement of the
Constitution. It would be strange that the steps necessary for the change
should be given up at the expiry of 15 years because what is said to be a
switch over from English to Hindi has not been possible and Parliament provided
by law for r. he continued use of the English language for particular purposes
specified in that law.
The Presidential Order keeps in view the
ultimate object to make the Hindi language as official language, but take is
into note the circumstances prevailing in our country and considers it
desirable that the change should be a gradual one and due regard should be
given to the just claims and the interests of persons belonging to the non-Hindi
speaking areas. The purpose of the Presidential Order is to promote the spread of
the Hindi language and to provide the Central Government employees the
facilities to take training in Hindi language when they are in service.
The Presidential Order was validly made and
there has been and can be no challenge to it. It is erroneous to suggest that
the Presidential Order of 1960 became invalid after the passing of the Act. The
High Court failed to see the sequence of the Presidential Order and the Act.
323 The Act merely continues the use of the
English language in addition to Hindi. The Act does not provide anything which
can be interpreted as a limitation on the power of the President to issue
directions under Article 344(6) of the Constitution. The Presidential Order has
no inconsistency with the Act. The non-obstante provisions in Article 344(6)
empower the President. Therefore, the Presidential Order is paramount.
Parliament is legislating in a different
field. The filed is the per missive use of English language in addition to
Hindi during the period following 15 years because the change to Hindi could
not be complete., The transitional period has exceeded 15 years. The
Presidential Order keeps in view the steps to replace the use of English
language.
The operation of the Act and the Presidential
Order is in different fields and has different purposes. The Act is to continue
the use of English language after the expiry of fifteen years. The.
Presidential Order on the other hand is to provide for the progressive use of
the Hindi language.
The contention of the respondent that persons
are placed at a disadvantage is incorrect. The Presidential Order confers an
additional qualification on those who learn Hindi. The Presidential Order does
not take away anything from the Government employees. Prizes are offered and
there may be increase in pay. These are incentives. The measures taken for
enforcement of provisions for learning Hindi by providing for absence from
classes as breach of discipline and insisting on appearance at the examinations
are steps in aid of fulfilling the object of what is described as "in-service
training in Hindi language." Such enforcement of attendance and
examinations for proficiency is necessary for completion of training. The
contention that the Presidential Order conflicts with section 3(4) of the Act
is unsound. The "in-service training" of the employees is during
hours of duty and free of cost. Even if they fail there is no penalty. There is
no treatment of unequals alike.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of
the High Court is set aside. The Presidential Order and other Orders challenged
in the writ petitions are upheld. The appeals are accepted. The writ petitions
are dismissed. Parties will pay and bear their own costs.
S.R. Appeal allowed.
Back
