Linguistic Secularism

GS I-Society

Context

In the 2014 case of UP Hindi Sahittya Sammelan vs State of UP, the Supreme Court upheld the principle of linguistic secularism, emphasizing its role in fostering inclusivity in language policies. The ruling gains significance in the ongoing discourse over language in India.

What is Linguistic Secularism?

Linguistic secularism refers to the approach of ensuring that multiple languages are accommodated in governance and education without the dominance of any single language. It seeks to strike a balance between regional linguistic aspirations and the broader goal of national unity.

Significance in India’s Language Discourse

• Tamil Nadu’s Opposition: The state government has criticized the National Education Policy (NEP), arguing that it imposes Hindi and hampers regional educational progress.
• Union Government’s Position: The central government maintains that NEP promotes linguistic inclusivity while implementing educational reforms.

Supreme Court’s Key Observations

• Evolutionary Nature of Language Laws: The court acknowledged that both language and legal frameworks evolve naturally over time, necessitating flexibility in linguistic policies.
• Adaptability Over Rigidity: Indian language laws are designed to be inclusive rather than rigid, fostering linguistic harmony.
• No Forced Language Imposition: The Supreme Court cautioned that enforcing a language against public will could be detrimental to national cohesion.
• Hindi as an Official, Not National Language: The Munshi-Ayyangar formula, a compromise reached during the Constituent Assembly debates, designated Hindi in Devanagari script as the official language but did not confer upon it the status of a national language.
• Right to Choose the Medium of Instruction: The court ruled that the Right to Education includes the freedom to select the language of instruction, preventing any coercive imposition by the state.
• Article 351 & Hindi Promotion: While Article 351 mandates the Union to promote Hindi, it does not override the right of individuals to receive education in their language of choice.
• Fundamental Right to Language Preservation: Article 29(1) guarantees all linguistic communities—not just minorities—the right to safeguard their language, script, and culture.

Munshi-Ayyangar Formula

Developed by K.M. Munshi and N. Gopalaswamy Ayyangar, this compromise led to the drafting of Article 343, which established Hindi in Devanagari as the official language of the Union while allowing English to continue for official purposes for a transitional period of 15 years.

Notable Judicial References

• 216th Law Commission Report: Warned against the compulsory imposition of Hindi, emphasizing that language should be a unifying rather than divisive force.
• Allahabad High Court (1982): Declared that no citizen can demand that an institution provide education in a specific language.
• State of Karnataka vs Associated Management (2014): Upheld the right of students and parents to determine the medium of instruction.
• U.S. Supreme Court’s Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1924): Referenced by the Indian Supreme Court to assert that education is not solely a state-controlled domain but also a fundamental right of families and guardians.