HINDI HITRAKSHAK SAMITI AND ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

Citation: [1990] 1 S.C.R. 588

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: SABYASACHI MUKHERJI, K.N. SAIKIA, M.M. PUNCHHI

Case summary

an application under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for issue of a writof mandamus He is permitted to do so, and the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn but this will not prejudice the rights, if any, of the petitioners, legal or otherwise, to take appropriate...

Judgment text

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, CJ. This is . an application under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for issue of a writof mandamus directing the Central Government to hold-pre-medical and pre-dental y entrance examinations in Hindi and other regional languages as, ' according to the petitioners, mandated_b_y Article 29(2) of the Constitution of India: The petition is by nine petitioners. Petitioner No. I is Hindi Hitrakshak Samiti which is stated to be a society formed with the aim and objed of propagating and ensuring the propagation of the national language Hindi and other regional languages; and to further the cause of the citizens of India who are educated in any one or more of the languages and who face difficulty in competitive examinations in which the medium of examination is English only. Petitioners Nos.

3 to 10 are the students who allege that they wish to appear in the coming PMT/PDT examinations in Hindi or other regional languages and are being adversely affected and discriminated against, and will tie in a disadvantageous position in the forthcoming PMT/PDT exal)lination in comparison to those who have passed the higher secondary-or equivalent examination with English as their medium of instruction. The petition seeks issue of writ directed against the Union of India, Central Board of Secondary Education and Medical Council of India. It is stated that in the year 1974 there was a survey by National Council for Educati -- It is difficult to contend that the actions following from non- , acceptance of any policy perspective, amount to direct and causal violation of the fundamental right of the citizens guaranteed under the Constitution of India. Court is not the forum to adjudicate upon the questions of policy unless such a policy is the direct mandate of the Constitution. )....

It is well-settled that judicial review, in order to enforce a fundamental right, is permissible of administrative, legislative and govern- ... -'-mental action or non-action, and that the rights of the citizens of this country are to be judged by the judiciary and judicial forums and not '1 by the administrators or executives. But it is equally true that citizens of India are not to be governed by the Judges or judiciary. If the governance is illegal or violative of rights and obligations, other questions may arise out whether, as mentioned hereinbefore, it has to be a r policy decision by the Government or the authority and thereafter enforcement of that policy, the Court should not be, and we hope would not be an appropriate forum for decision.

In the background of the facts and the circumstances of the case and the nature of controversy that has arisen, we are of the opinion that proper and appropriate remedy in a situation where enforcement >of the right depends upon the acceptance of a policy of examination for admission in any particular language to the Institution on that basis, is a matter of policy. Whether in particular facts and the circumstances of this case admission to medical or dental Institution by conducting examination in Hindi or other regional languages would be appro- HITRAKSHAK SAMIT! v. U. 0. 1. [MUKHARJI, C. J. J 593 priate or desirable or not, is a matter on which debate is possible and the acceptance of one view over the other involves a policy decision. It cannot be appropriately dealt with by this Court, and order under Article 32 of the Constitution in those circumstances would not be an appropriate remedy.

Counsel for the petitioners drew our attention to the facts that notice had been issued to the respondent. That is true. On a closer examination of this matter we are of the opinion that in view of the controversy involved herein, we should not proceed with this application on that basis any further. Counsel for the petitioners then wanted to withdraw this writ petition. He is permitted to do so, and the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn but this will not prejudice the rights, if any, of the petitioners, legal or otherwise, to take appropriate steps, if any, as they 11)3Y be advised, in accordance with law . • N. P. V. Petition dismissed. ,