Asserting people’s right to linguistic freedom, the Supreme Court held there is no bar against a State Legislature declaring a language used in a State as an official language for the convenience of its citizens.
This means that a widely-used language in a State, once declared as an official language by the State Legislature, would find a place in official communications, on government orders and advertisements and even signposts.
A Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice of India R.M. Lodha, and also comprising Justices Dipak Misra, Madan B. Lokur, Kurian Joseph and S.A. Bobde, was passing judgment on petition by UP Hindi Sahitya Sammelan against the 1989 amendment to the Uttar Pradesh Official Language Act, 1951.
The Legislature introduced Urdu as the second official language of the State, besides Hindi, saying “in the interest of Urdu-speaking people, the language shall be used as second language, in addition to Hindi.”
The Bench upheld the 1989 amendment and declared Urdu as the State’s “second official language”.
The judgment brought cheer among social organisations and intellectuals in the State, who said it is now upon the State government to give Urdu a due place not only officially but also functionally.
The Bench’s judgment focused on the question of law as to whether a State Legislature is precluded from adopting another language used in the State if Hindi had already been declared the official language.
Article 345 says “the Legislature of a State may by law adopt any one or more of the languages in use in the State or Hindi as the language or languages to be used for all or any of the official purposes of that State”.
Chief Justice Lodha, who authored the unanimous judgment, explained that the separate mention of ‘Hindi’ in the Article was only meant to promote Hindi among the States.
“This cannot be taken to mean that the particular State Legislature must sacrifice its power in promoting other languages within the State. The purpose of using Hindi separately in Article 345 is to facilitate adoption of Hindi across the States whether or not Hindi is in use in a particular State,” the judgment said.
The court cautioned that “any other construction to Article 345 would be unduly interfering with the language compromise adopted by the Constitution”.
The judgment said there are many States who have chosen other languages for official purposes despite Hindi being their official language.
“Many State Legislatures have adopted other officially recognised language(s) in addition to Hindi such as Bihar, Haryana, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh and Uttarakhand,” it said.
The court further held that the State Legislature’s power to declare a language in use in the State as official language is not curbed by Article 347 of the Constitution.
Article 347 prescribes that a language can be made official upon the satisfaction of the President.
But the court interpreted that Articles 345 and 347 prescribe two different and independent processes of making a widely-used language official in a State, and both are not limited by the other.
