Prescribe Minimum Marks Requirement For Languages Other Than Tamil & English Also In TN Schools: Supreme Court In Linguistic Minorities' Plea
The Supreme Court on Thursday (September 21) made some pertinent observations with respect to Tamil Nadu Tamil Learning Act, 2006, (Act) which made Tamil paper compulsory in the tenth standard board exam. Pursuant to the Act, while Tamil was mandated in the syllabus as a compulsory subject, minority linguistics were considered as an optional subject for which there was no requirement of...
The Supreme Court on Thursday (September 21) made some pertinent observations with respect to Tamil Nadu Tamil Learning Act, 2006, (Act) which made Tamil paper compulsory in the tenth standard board exam. Pursuant to the Act, while Tamil was mandated in the syllabus as a compulsory subject, minority linguistics were considered as an optional subject for which there was no requirement of minimum marks obtained.
The core issue before the Bench, comprising Justices S.K. Kaul and Sudhanshu Dhulia, was whether minimum marks can be prescribed for minority linguistics akin to what was already a requirement for other subjects including Tamil and English languages. It may also be noted that prescription of minimum marks was sought by the petitioner Linguistic Minorities Forum of Tamil Nadu in view to obtain proficiency for minority linguistics as well.
The Court held that while proficiency in English and Tamil is required; however, to protect the interest of minority linguistic institutions and the minority linguistic followers, we also need similar proficiency in their mother tongue language, albeit an optional subject, and thus, minimum marks as provided for other subjects will also be provided for the mother tongue and reflected in mark sheet.
It was also observed that “India is a vast country with many diversities including languages. There are sentiments involved in respect of the mother tongue…persons whose mother tongue is different from language of the state also resides in that state and would like to maintain their culture and language.”
Moving forward, the Court noted that even the medium of instructions in minority institutions is also in the mother tongue, thus proficiency in that language is necessary for basic education purpose.
The Bench was hearing a plea challenging the order of the Madras High Court whereby it refused to quash a government order dated September 18, 2014 bringing all the schools in the state under the purview of the Tamil Nadu Tamil Learning Act, 2006 which made Tamil paper compulsory in the tenth standard board exam. This meant languages such as Telugu, Urdu, Malayalam, Kannada, Hindi, Gujarati, Arabic and Sanskrit would no longer be part of the school syllabus. However, the High Court had exempted students belonging to linguistic minority schools from writing Tamil language papers in Class 10 State Board Examination for the academic year 2020-2022.
Thereafter, on February 6, 2023, the Apex Court extended the exemptions granted to students for the academic year, 2022-2023. The Court also noted that at present the matter cannot be decided finally, thus, the Bench thought it fit to extend the interim relief by another year.
Court Room Exchange
At the outset, Counsel, appearing for the petitioner, argued that linguistic minority institutions should be allowed to learn their mother tongue along with Tamil.
Justice Kaul, inquired: Every state has its requirement to learn its language. What is that is prohibiting learning of the other language?
Counsel referred to several government orders which stipulate linguistic minority language as a compulsory subject but they are not being implemented.
Justice Kaul: If linguistic minority wants to learn their language and if the school is letting them teach the same then there should be no difficulty… How can this be prohibited?
At this stage, Justice Dhulia pointed out that the Act in effect, exempts students migrating to the State from its ambit.
Counsel clarified that the issue is about natives and the syllabus stops linguistic minorities residing in state to learn their language. Further, the counsel also reiterated the facts of the case and argued that it is the right of the linguistic minority to learn their own language. He averred that he is not challenging the Act and in fact, relying on it. He stated that in furtherance of the Act, minority linguistic language could be studied as an additional subject however, there was there is no requirement of minimum marks obtained.
Justice Dhulia further inquired whether the issue is that for Tamil, there is requirement of minimum marks however, for mother tongue of linguistic minorities there is no such stipulation. “So you want minimum marks.” To this, Counsel replied in affirmative.
Justice Kaul: Your idea is even if this is optional, linguistic minorities while learning Tamil should not lose their own language?
Counsel: Yes, but state is not agreeable to prescribing minimum marks.
Pursuant to this Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for the state, argued that the constitutional validity of Act has already been upheld by the Apex Court.
However, Justice Kaul categorically stated that the narrow issue for adjudication is only regarding the prescription of minimum marks. He further reiterated the contention of the appellant’s Counsel.
“He accepts that it is an optional subject. He says that in the optional subject people must get certain excellence in their language otherwise, the language will die out. I think that is correct”
In view of these facts and circumstances, the Bench passed order in favor of the appellant. After the pronouncement of the judgment, Justice Kaul remarked: “They want to keep their language and culture alive. That is what the issue is.”
Case Title: Linguistic Minorities Forum of Tamil Nadu v. State of Tamil Nadu And Ors. SLP(C) No. 16727-16728/2022]
Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 839