Children can’t be forced to take education in English medium: Rajasthan High Court

The case reached the court after the state government’s move to convert a Hindi medium school to an English medium. The move has been called as the violation of Articles 19(1)(a) [freedom of speech and expression] and 14 [equality before the law] of the Constitution by Justice Dinesh Mehta.

The Rajasthan High Court conducted a hearing recently between the School Development Management Committee vs the State of Rajasthan. Amid the session, the HC 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 valid legislation. The case reached the court after the state government’s move to convert a Hindi medium school to an English medium. The move has been called as the violation of Articles 19(1)(a) [freedom of speech and expression] and 14 [equality before the law] of the Constitution by Justice Dinesh Mehta.

According to the report, the petition against the State government was being heard by a single judge. The court said, “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 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 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 funds must be allocated and new infrastructure must be created 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 mandates 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 km of the same school imparting education in Hindi and thus, the petitioners’ stance that their fundamental rights were violated was baseless.

The State also argued 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 an 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 also stated that scooping out 601 children in a go with the assurance that they would be accommodated in nearby schools that too in the middle of the academic session was a violation of their fundamental rights. The court then explained that the step would also affect the students emotionally as a school for students is not just another infrastructure but their second home or sort of a temple, where they flock to learn; to play, and to grow.

Accepting the plea, the Court held the matter stating that if a majority of the members of the School Development Management Committee agree that the school should be converted into an English-medium school, only then will the State’s decision be accepted.

Read More: