Mandatorily Teaching Kannada Language In Schools Prejudicially Affects Both Students And Teachers: Plea In Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court division bench comprising Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice M G S Kamal on Wednesday issued notice to the State government on a PIL filed by parents and teachers of children studying in various CBSE and CISCE schools in the state, questioning few enactments that make teaching of Kannada language in schools compulsory.

The plea states that the following enactments— Kannada Language Learning Act, 2015, Kannada Language Learning Rules, 2017, Karnataka Educational Institutions (Issue of No Objection Certificate and Control) Rules, 2022— prejudicially affect both students and teachers.

So far as students are concerned, the plea states, "The aforesaid enactments severely and prejudicially affect the right of school students in the State of Karnataka to study a First, Second, and Third language of their choice. This has grave ramifications on the academic outcomes of children and stands to prejudicially affect their academic and employment opportunities in the future.”

As for teachers, it says, "These enactments have serious consequences on the livelihood of teachers who teach languages other than Kannada in schools. Clearly, these enactments have been brought into force without any regard to the interests of the school children or teachers who will be gravely affected by these enactments. The above enactments fall foul of several constitutional safeguards and guarantees and are also repugnant to the Karnataka Education Act, 1983.”

Senior Advocate Aditya Sondhi appearing for the petitioners argued that while the Impugned Act and Impugned Rules mandate that Kannada is to be taught as a First or a Second language, the NOC Rules require Kannada to be taught as a Second or a Third Language. It says,

“Rule 6(1) of the NOC Rules travels beyond the scope of the parent Act, l.e., the Karnataka Education Act, 1983, and states that all schools affiliated to CBSE and CISCE shall come under the purview of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983. Such a stipulation is prima facie contrary to Section 1(3)(a) of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983.”

Further, “Rule 6(2) that Kannada shall be taught as a second or a third language as per provisions of the Impugned Act. This is also without any application of mind as the Impugned Rules which operationalize the Impugned Act do not provide any mechanism or method by which Kannada could be taught as a Third language.”

Furthermore, “Rule 6(5) of the NOC Rules states that the State Government may withdraw the NOC granted to the institution, in case of any violation of the provisions of the NOC Rules. Such a provision has been made only to threaten CBSE and CISCE schools into compulsorily teaching Kannada as a language even though such a penal consequence cannot be traced back to the parent Act i.e. the Karnataka Education Act, 1983.”

The petitioners state that they are not opposed to Kannada being taught as a language in schools and have utmost respect and regard for the rich heritage and history of Kannada language and its literature. “However, its compulsory imposition in the manner that is sought to be done through the above enactments would cause severe prejudice to school children and fall foul of constitutional principles and this issue is sought to be urged in the instant writ petition by way of public interest,” it is said.

Reference is also made to coordinate bench order wherein the Union of India clarified that there is no scope for language imposition under the NEP 2020. Significantly, the GOs by which Kannada was sought to be imposed as a compulsory language in degree courses have been stayed by the Karnataka High Court.

It is contended that the present Petition is precisely in the same context of language imposition, albeit in the realm of imposition on schools. "On the merits of the matter, it is submitted that there is no qualitative difference between students in CBSE and CISCE schools and students in degree courses. It is most respectfully submitted that similar orders ought to be passed in the instant petition as well on the principle of parity.”

Accordingly, the plea prays for declaring that Rule 6(1) of the NOC Rules as unconstitutional, and consequently declare that the NOC Rules do not apply to CBSE and CISCE schools. In the alternative, it is sought to hold that Rule 6(2) of the NOC Rules are unconstitutional and declare that the Impugned Act and the Impugned Rules do not apply to CBSE and CISCE schools.

Further, the plea seeks to forbear the State and its officials from implementing the Impugned Act and the Impugned Rules against schools affiliated to CBSE and CISCE boards.

The petitioners also sought interim relief to stay the implementation of the impugned enactments. However, the bench refused to pass any interim orders until the State government files its statement of objections.

Case Title: Somashekar C & Others And State of Karnataka & Others

Case No: WP 9574/2023