A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court will now decide your mother tongue. This after it was requested by parents in Karnataka who opposed the State Government’s policy to introduce Kannada as the medium of instruction in primary classes.
Dealing with the issue not just from a legal point of view but as a question that faced the future of the country, the bench of Justices P Sathasivam and Ranjan Gogoi framed a set of five questions to be answered by a Constitution bench, comprising of not less than five judges.
Among them, the most challenging question to be decided by court would be to define mother tongue. Giving the broad contours of the exercise to be carried out by the larger bench, Justice Sathasivam giving the judgment wrote, “What does mother tongue mean, if it referred to as the language in which the child is comfortable with, then who will decide the sameIJ”
The background in which the question was framed arose out of a Karnataka Government order of April 29, 1994. It instructed that the medium of instruction should be mother tongue or Kannada, in all Government recognised schools in Classes I to IV. Parents had opposed this order since it amounted to compelling students to learn and be taught in Kannada. The parents’ body even opposed the State determining the medium of instruction for their children.
On the other hand, a set of educationists from the State supported the Government’s move to inculcate pride in mother tongue and favoured the 1994 notification which helped achieve this purpose. This view was even supported by a previous decision of the Supreme Court passed in 1993 which had upheld Kannada as the medium of instruction in schools.
While sending the present set of petitions to the Constitution Bench, the bench noted the far reaching consequence of the issue involved on the future of the students. “The primary school years of a child is an important phase in a child’s education…thus primary education lays the groundwork for future learning and success.”
At the same time, the court was conscious about the importance a language played in the country. “We must recollect that reorganisation of States was primarily based on language.” Further, the judges believed that the issue under question concerned the fundamental rights of not just the present generation but of the generations yet to be born.