Citations: U.P. Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Vs. State of U.P., (2014)
Date of Judgment: 04.09.2014
Equivalent Citations: 2014 (142) AIC 5, AIR 2015 SC 1154, 2014 (6) ALJ 321, 2015 (1) ALLMR 401, 2014 (106) ALR 879, 2014 (6) AWC 5830 (SC), 2014 (II) CLR (SC) 879, (2014) 6 MLJ 624 (SC), 2014 (4) RCR (Civil) 350, 2014 (10) SCALE 119, 2014 (9) SCJ 130, (2014) 3 UPLBEC 2360.
Case No. : 459 of 1997
Case Type: Civil Appeal
Appellant: U.P. Hindi Sahitya Sammelan
Respondent: State of U.P.
Bench:
- Hon’ble Justice Madan B. Lokur
- Hon’ble Justice Kurian Joseph
- Hon’ble Justice S.A. Bobde.
Court: Supreme Court of India
Statues referred:
- Constitution of India, 1950; Articles – 345, 347
- Uttar Pradesh Official Language Act, 1951; Sections – 2, 3 and 5.
Cases referred:
- Sri Nasiruddin Vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal (1975) 2 SCC 671
Facts:
- The Uttar Pradesh Official Language Act, 1951 was passed in Hindi by the U.P. Legislative Assembly on 27.09.1951 and by the U.P. Legislative Council on 29.09.1951.
- On 05.11.1951, it received the assent of the Governor.
- Finally, The Uttar Pradesh Official Language Act, 1951 was published in Gazette and came into force on 12.11.1951.
- The Act was enacted by the State Legislature to provide for adoption of Hindi as the language to be used for the official purposes and other matters of the State of Uttar Pradesh.
- An appeal was filed by the Appellant against amendment whereby Section 3 was inserted after Section 2 in 1951 Act providing for Urdu language as second official language for such purposes as may be notified by State Government from time to time.
Issues involved:
1. Whether the impugned enactment can be said to be a valid piece of legislation within the meaning of Article 345 of the Constitution?
2. Whether the impugned notification suffers from the vice of excessive delegation ?
3. Whether the impugned enactment and the impugned notification are valid and constitutional or ultra vires?
Contention of Appellant:
The Counsel for the Appellant contended that:
- The power of State Legislature under Article 345 gets exhausted after single use. According to him, the text of Article 345 gives State Legislature two options, one, adoption of any one or more languages in use in the State (Option 1), second, Hindi (Option 2). Once Option 2 is exercised, the power of the State Legislature gets exhausted.
- The constitutionality of U.P. Ordinance No. 44 of 1983 and 1989 Amendment of the Uttar Pradesh Official Language Act, 1951 was challenged.
- The 1989 Amendment Act and the impugned notification in writ petition were ultra vires and liable to be struck down.
Contention of Respondent:
The Counsel for Respondent contented that:
- Article 345, which empowers state legislatures to adopt languages for official purposes, does not restrict a state from adopting additional languages in use within the state, even after Hindi has been chosen as the official language.
Judgment:
There was no merit found in the appeal and it is dismissed with no order as to costs and it was held that neither insertion of Section 3 in the 1989 Amendment Act nor the impugned notification in pursuance of notifying Urdu as the second language is unconstitutional.
Ratio decidendi:
- The court carefully analyzed Article 345 of the Constitution, which governs the adoption of languages for official purposes by State Legislatures. Where it was interpreted that Constitution did not explicitly restrict the State Legislature from adopting additional languages in use in the State as official languages, even if Hindi had already been adopted. The use of the word “or” in Article 345 did not imply mutual exclusivity between different language adoption options.
- The judgment emphasized the importance of constitutional flexibility and the need to accommodate linguistic diversity within the federal structure of India.
- The court found that the 1989 Amendment Act, which introduced Section 3 allowing Urdu as a second official language for specified purposes, was constitutional. It reasoned that this provision did not constitute excessive delegation of legislative power, as it allowed the State Government to determine the specific purposes for which Urdu could be used.
Obiter dicta:
N/A
Conclusion:
In conclusion, the court upholds the constitutional validity of the law that allowed the adoption of Urdu as the second language for specific purposes, rejecting the appellant’s argument that the adoption of Hindi as an official language restricts a state from adopting other official languages. The court emphasizes the flexibility and accommodation inherent in India’s language policies. It stated the absence of direction issued by the President under Article 347 of the Constitution, there is no restriction, restraint or impediment for the State Legislature in adopting one of the languages in use in the State as an official language under Article 345 of the Constitution of India and Uttar Pradesh Official Language Act, 1951 aimed to make Hindi the official language for various purposes in the State of Uttar Pradesh.
By Devanshi Saxena
Edited By Bharti Verma, Associate Editor at law insider
Published on: October 21, 2023 at 10:25 IST