English as medium of instruction in school cannot be thrust upon children: Rajasthan High Court

The Rajasthan High Court recently held that the rights of a school and its students to receive education in Hindi are protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution and cannot be diluted in the absence of a valid legislation [School Development Management Committee v. State of Rajasthan]..Justice Dinesh Mehta found the State government's move to convert a Hindi medium school to an English medium one violative of Articles 19(1)(a) [freedom of speech and expression] and 14 [equality before the law] of the Constitution.“In the opinion of this Court, English, as a medium of instruction cannot be thrust upon a child even by a legislation enacted by the State Government, much less by a policy decision,” the Court said.The single-judge was hearing a petition against the State government’s decision to convert a Hindi medium school catering to the educational needs to about 600 children into English medium..The plea was filed by the School Development Management Committee and its member-parents. When the government refused to act on the representations of the petitioners, they moved the High Court..The counsel for the petitioner at the outset clarified that they were not opposed to English as a medium of instruction, but were aggrieved by the overnight conversion and resultant ouster of students.It was submitted that if the State wished to open more English-medium schools, then it must allocate funds and create new infrastructure for the same since the conversion of the existing schools was an arbitrary exercise.It was brought to the Court’s attention that the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act of 2009 mandate the medium of instruction to be the students' mother tongue..The State on the other hand informed the Court that there were as many as nine government schools within 5 kms of the same school imparting education in Hindi and thus, the petitioners’ stance that their fundamental rights were violated was baseless.The State’s contention was that the establishment of a school, including conversion of schools to English medium, was a policy decision, better left to its discretion..The single-judge concluded that the right to get education in a particular language was relatable to Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.“A child or on his behalf, his parent(s) have the right to choose the language in which his/their child should be imparted education,” concluded the Court.The Court clarified that the State’s decision was not protected under clause (2) [reasonable restriction] of Article 19 since it was purely administrative in nature and did not qualify as “law”..Justice Mehta opined that scooping out 601 children “with one stroke of pen” with the assurance that they would be accommodated in nearby schools was violative of their fundamental rights.“The same is likely to affect their emotional quotient as well. Because, for children, their school is not only a structure made of stones, cement and concrete – it is a second home or sort of a temple, where they flock to learn; to play and to grow,” the Court explained..The Court criticised the assurance of the State, reasoning that uprooting 601 saplings (students) from the present school to be implanted in nearby schools was not a valid justification, particularly in the middle of the academic session.The Court thus allowed the plea and held that if a majority of the members of the School Development Management Committee resolve that the school be converted to an English-medium school, only then will the State’s decision be given effect to..Advocate Moti Singh appeared for the petitioners while the respondents were represented by the Additional Advocate General Pankaj Sharma with advocates Rishi Soni and Deepak Chandak..[Read Judgment]