"English As A Medium of Instruction Can't Be Thrusted Upon A Child Even By A Legislation Much Less By A Policy Decision": Rajasthan High Court

While allowing the plea filed by the petitioner, the single bench of Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur held that the decision of the State seeking to convert the school in question from a Hindi medium to an English Medium school with immediate effect, is fortiori, violative of Article 19(1)(a) and 14 of the Constitution.

Justice Dinesh Mehta held that English, as a medium of instruction, cannot be thrusted upon a child even by a legislation enacted by the State Government, much less by a policy decision".

The present petition, filed by the School Development Management Committee of Shri Hari Singh Senior Secondary School, Pilwa Panchayat Samiti Dechu, Jodhpur, challenging the decisions of Sept 2021 taken by the state government which converted petitioners' Hindi Medium school to an English Medium School - Mahatma Gandhi Government School (English Medium).

From the factual matrix ,the following 5 questions emerged and the court answered accordingly:

(i) Whether Article 21A of the Constitution of India which guarantees a right to education, also guarantees right to receive education in mother tongue or home language?

Relying on the Supreme Court's case of State of Karnataka & Anr. Vs. Associated Management of English Medium Primary & Secondary Schools & Ors. (2014) 9 SCC 485, the court ruled that since Article 21A of the Constitution is tethered with the words "in such manner, as the State, may, by law determine", therefore, the State may by law provide the medium and manner to provide such free education, which in a given case can be Hindi, English or even regional dialect - the mother tongue of the child. No child or parent can claim it as a matter of right, that he/his ward should be instructed in a particular language or the mother tongue only.

(ii) Whether right to get education in mother tongue or Hindi is a fundamental right?

While examining the above ruling of State of Karnataka, wherein the Supreme Court also held that the right to have education in mother tongue or in a particular medium is guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a), the single bench in this instant case, pointed out that such right has reasonable restriction under Article 19(2) of the Constitution.

The court added that the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) is only subject to reasonable restrictions by law to be enacted by the State and through these, it can prescribe a medium of instruction considering the overall development of the child & socio-economic factors.

The court answered that the State's policy decision cannot whittle down the fundamental right of a child to be taught in a particular medium, which is assured rather protected by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India.

(iii) Whether the policy decision of the State converting the school in question to Mahatma Gandhi English Medium School is in conflict with the provisions of section 20, 21, 22 and 29(2)(f) of the Act of 2009?

The court pursued the Act of 2009 and the Rajasthan Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules, 2011 ("Rules"), which authorised the School Management Committee to perform various functions including the preparation of school development plan, enrollment, attendance etc. However, the Court was unable to conclude that prescription of medium of instruction is a decision to be taken by the School Management Committee, as a part of school development plan. The court observed that preparing a school development plan cannot be misconstrued to mean the prescription of syllabus and medium of instructions. It has to be done by the experts in the field of education/child education.

(iv) Whether the consent of School Development Management Committee (SDMC) is necessary before converting a Hindi medium school to an English medium school?

The court opined that on the conjoint reading of section 21 and 22 of the Act of 2009 and Rule 3 and 22 of the Rules of 2011, it can be observed that it is not within the domain of the SDMC to decide as to what language pupil of the school will be instructed. The medium of instruction is to be determined by the Appropriate Authority or Rajasthan School Education Council, added the court.

Rule 3(2) of 2011 thereof provides that parent/guardian of every child studying in the School will be a member of the SDMC. However, In this case, the impugned administrative decision of abruptly converting a Hindi medium school to an English medium was upheld, without the wishes and consent of the SDMC.

The court remarked that changing the medium of instruction of a school which houses 601 rural students, out of which 303 are girls and a major part of them hail from lower strata, including SC, ST, OBC and minorities cannot be countenanced. The same is violative of their constitutional rights and is likely to affect their emotional quotient as well.

The court ruled, "Merely because the State has taken a stand that in view of the demand of more English medium schools, one English medium school in all villages having the population of more than 5000 should be established, the opinion of the SDMC cannot be given a go bye – altogether. The argument that there is no requirement of consent of the SDMC, for the school in question, as it is founded; funded; maintained and controlled by the State, cannot be accepted."

The court, while quashing the state's decision, remarked, "The defence, which the State has taken that the children of this school will be accommodated in nearby schools, cannot be accepted as a valid justification for uprooting 601 saplings (students) from the present school to be implanted in nearby schools, even if they are within the vicinity of 2 kms. Such action in no case can be taken in the middle of academic session 2011-22."

(v) Who can decide or change the medium of instruction in elementary level schools?

As per court, Section 29 of the RTE Act specifically provides that curriculum and evaluation procedure shall be laid down by the Academic Authority. Rule 22 of Rules, 2011, which have been framed in exercise of powers available to the State under section 38 of the RTE Act is the relevant provision, which provides for and speaks of an Academic Authority. The court opined that since the medium of instruction is to be determined by the Academic Authority, which in the State of Rajasthan is Rajasthan School Education Council, the School Management Committee, cannot decide the medium of instruction may it be Hindi or English.

The court observed, "Section 29(2)(f) of the Act of 2009 and the National Education Policy, 2020 prescribes that the medium of education or instruction till elementary level shall be in mother tongue. This Court has no hesitation in holding that the same cannot be changed to English medium at least by an administrative decision. It further added, "The conversion of the school in question to English medium is, therefore, clearly contrary to the provisions of section 21, 22, 29(1) and 29(2)(f) of the RTE Act."

In addition to this, the Single Bench relied on the case of Dr. Srinivas Guntupalli Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.; Writ Petition (PIL) No.183/2019. wherein Andhra Government had issued notification which provided that all Government schools from Grade - I to VIII for the academic session 2020-21 and Grade – IX & X for the academic session 2021-2022 be converted to English medium schools. When said decision came to judicial scrutiny, the Andhra Pradesh High Court quashed the Government notification holding, inter-alia, that the same is violative of Article 21A and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, apart from being in contravention of provisions of section 29(2) of the Right to Education Act, 2009 and section 7(3) and 7(4) of the Act of Andhra Pradesh Right to Education Act, 1982.

The petitioner pointed out that the school comprises various children below 14 years. He argued that consequent to the impugned decision of the State, the students of the school are compelled to take admission in other schools that too in the midst of their academic session. Such action/order of the State Government is violative of the rights of the petitioners and students/parents guaranteed under Article 21A of the Constitution.

The petitioner further submitted that if the State really wants to bring in more English medium schools or Mahatma Gandhi Schools, it is incumbent upon it to create infrastructure and provide for budget as had been done in the operational guidelines of 2014-15, in which a decision to establish Swami Vivekanand Government Model School was taken by the State Government, however by setting apart separate budget for the same.

On the other hand, the respondents argued that the right of primary education has been guaranteed by Article 21A of the Constitution of India, but the same is not an absolute right. Imparting education in English can by no stretch of imagination be said to be violation of right guaranteed under Article 21A of the Constitution of India.

Case Title: School Development Management Committee, Shri Hari Singh Senior Secondary School and Ors  v. State Of Rajasthan and Anr