What Language I Teach My Children In, Does Not Have Any Cross Border Implications; Should Not Be Decided By Parliament: TN Govt To Madras HC

While hearing petitions seeking to move education from the concurrent list to the state list, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the State of Tamil Nadu submitted that Education was one such area where no one policy fits all.

Sibal was making submissions before a bench of Justice R Mahadevan, Justice M Sundar, and Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy in favor of moving education to the State list. According to Sibal, each state had its own differences and it was not possible to give uniform criteria for all states.

Education is one area where no one policy fits all. What is required in one state is different from what is needed in another state. There is local culture, art. What is needed is to be decided by the state, Sibal argued 

[Challenge to the removal of Education from the State List to the Concurrent List]

The #MadarasHighCourt (a three-judge bench) is presently hearing the stand of the Tamil Nadu government.

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal (@KapilSibal) is appearing for the Tamil Nadu Government. pic.twitter.com/aJOCVLjN0Y

— Live Law (@LiveLawIndia) November 8, 2022

Sibal further submitted that while the Parliament could impose certain standards, what must be the curriculum taught in schools to meet these standards should essentially be decided by the States. He emphasized that a child must be taught in his mother tongue. But when the Parliament invades into the power of the State, it can also possibly impose a uniform language which would be against the interest of the children.

"I recently heard in the North Block that medical education is going to be imparted in hindi across the country. Imagine my kids in Tamil Nadu studying MBBS in hindi. That cannot be done even under Entry 66 of List I. Parliament can impose standards for education but it cannot impose a condition that a particular language would be mandatory for imparting education," he argued.

Thus, it was his primary argument that while the Parliament could set up mechanisms for improving the standards of education across the nation, it could not end up deciding the future of the child. Everyone has different capabilities and therefore it is not desirable to not have any uniformity in education, he said.

"You (Union) can lay down standards, that's all. But when the state decides on admissions and all, where does Union come into the picture? It is a legislative invasion (by the Union) against the parents and the child...The language, syllabus, kind of teaching, and kind of education is my (state's) authority. An expansive definition cant be given to 'education' in entry 25 of the concurrent list to take up everything," he submitted.

When Justice Senthilkumar posed a question asking if the intention of the Parliament would have been to decide upon these matters on larger interest and how exactly would that violate the basic structure, Sibal argued that the thematic principal was that the Parliament would exercise jurisdiction only if the matter related to territorial boundaries, national security or other extraterritorial issues.

The distribution of power is in the lists itself. What language I teach my children in, does not have any cross border implications, he argued.

Sibal also submitted that when the matters pertained to local issues, the State should have the authority to decide upon them. When it had inter-state effects, the Parliament could very well decide upon the same. He emphasized that each state in the country should be given its own autonomy which must not be invaded by the Parliament.

When you say that india is a union of state, you should also recognise that each state has its own autonomy. Which also means that its autonomy should not be transgressed. 

Citing examples of community colleges in foreign countries which train students in unconventional courses, Sibal argued that every child had different capabilities and thus there could not be any uniformity in education. 

"We should look at education not from state's side but from children's side. In an attempt for uniformity, you're affecting the child's needs. There is nothing uniform in the world. Our faces are different, the way we talk, our nature, demeanor everything...and yet we are foisting uniformity when nothing is uniform. It is ironic," he said.

Sibal also submitted instead of deleting education from the State list, it should have been added to item 66 in the first list to ensure the maintenance of standards. He further submitted that an expansive definition cannot be given to education in entry 25 of the concurrent list to take up everything.

The arguments will continue on December 9th. 

Case Title: Aram Seyya Virumbu Trust v Union Of India

Case No: WP No. 19490 of 2021