- Home
- /
- Top Stories
- /
- Supreme Court Issues Notice On Plea...
Supreme Court Issues Notice On Plea To Include Rajasthani Language As Medium Of Instruction In Rajasthan Schools
LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK
14 Jan 2025 7:02 AM
The Supreme Court last week (January 10) issued notice on a petition seeking to include Rajasthani as a language to impart education to children in schools. The petitioners also sought directions to include Rajasthani Language in the examination syllabus of Rajasthan Eligibility Examination for Teacher.A bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta issued notice to the State...
The Supreme Court last week (January 10) issued notice on a petition seeking to include Rajasthani as a language to impart education to children in schools. The petitioners also sought directions to include Rajasthani Language in the examination syllabus of Rajasthan Eligibility Examination for Teacher.
A bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta issued notice to the State of Rajasthan, the Principal Secretary of the Education Department and the Coordinator of REET returnable within four weeks.
The Special Leave Petition was filed against the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court which rejected the petitioners' plea. The High Court held that it cannot issue a writ of mandamus to include Rajasthani as a language for education since it was an educational policy matter.
Although the official language of the State is Hindi as per the Rajasthan Official Language Act of 1956, the petitioners point out that Rajasthani is widely spoken by about 4.36 Crores people as per the 2011 census.
In 2021, the State Board of Education issued a notification stating that the medium of instruction in schools will be Hindi/English /Sanskrit /Urdu /Punjabi/Gujarati. The petitioners are aggrieved by the exclusion of Rajasthani. They refer to Article 350A of the Constitution which impose an obligation on the State to provide adequate facilities for instruction in the mother tongue at the primary stage of education to children belonging to linguistic minorities. It is argued that 'Rajasthani' speaking people constitute a 'linguistic minority' in terms of Article 350A.
Reference is also made to Section 29(2))(f) of the Right of Children for Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 which state that the "medium of instructions shall, as far as practicable, be in child's mother tongue." The National Education Policy also states that the medium of instructions for the children at least till Grade-V or preferably till Grade-VIII will be the mother tongue/local language wherever possible.
The petitioners point out that the High Court had, in May 2024, directed the State to explore the possibility of inclusion of Rajasthani in the forthcoming REET Examination. However, in the notification issued in November 2024 for REET, Rajasthani was not included.
The petitioners emphasised that the issue is also a matter of preservation of cultural rights. It is highlighted that the Rajasthani language has a rich literary and cultural heritage which needs protection.
It is argued that the children speaking 'Rajasthani' as 'mother tongue' are suffering from discrimination in as much as the languages which are spoken far less spoken as 'mother tongue' are included in the REET Examination whilst the predominant language of 'Rajasthani' is not included in the REET Examination.
The petitioners argue that the High Court erred in not issuing a mandamus to the State when there was a failure on its part to discharge its obligations under Article 350A. When there was a clear case of discrimination against Rajasthani speaking population, the High Court ought to have intervened, the petitioners argue. The freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) would include the right of a child to be educated in medium of instructions of her choice, and the medium of instruction till the Age of 14 (middle school) should normally be in 'mother tongue'.
It is argued that the State is duty bound to impart education in the mother tongue of the child, especially when the imparting education till 14 years is the duty enjoined on the State by virtue of Article 21-A of the Constitution.
The petitioners were represented by Dr.Manish Singhvi, Senior Advocate and Advocates Apurv Singhvi, Shalini Haldar and DK Devesh (AOR)
Case : Padam Mehta and another v. The State of Rajasthan and others | SLP (C) No.1090/2025