U.P. HINDI SAHITYA SAMMELAN versus STATE OF U.P.

1. On 12.11.1951, the Uttar Pradesh

p. 678

Official Language Act, 1951 (U.P. Act No.XXVI of 1951) (for short, '1951 Act') was published in Gazette Extraordinary and came into force. 1951 Act was passed in Hindi by the U.P. Legislative Assembly on 27. 09 .1951 and by the U. P Legislative Council on 29.09.1951. It received the assent of the Governor

p. 678

on 05.11.1951. 1951 Act is enacted by the State Legislature to provide for adoption of Hindi as the language to be used for the official purposes and other matters of the State of Uttar Pradesh.

p. 678, margin E

2. Section 2 of the 1951 Act reads as under: 2. Hindi to be official language of the State.-Without prejudice to the provisions of Articles 346 and 34 7 of the Constitution, Hindi in Devnagri script shall, with effect from such date, as the State Govern-ment may, by notification in the official Gazette, appoint in this behalf, be the language used in respect of the following :- (a) (i) ordinances promulgated under Article 213 of the A Constitution. (ii) orders, rules regulations and bye-laws issued by the State Government under the Constitution of India or under any law made by Parliament or the Legislature of the

pp. 678–679, margin F

8 . State, and (b) all or any of the official purposes of the State; and different dates may be appointed for different purposes in clauses (a) and (b) aforesaid.

p. 679

A proviso was inserted to above Section 2 by U.P. Act No.9 of 1969. It reads, "Provided that the State Government may by general or special order, in this behalf, permit the use of the international form of Indian numerals for any official purpose of the State."

p. 679

3. On 07 .04.1982, an Ordinance called the Uttar Pradesh Official Language (Amendment) Ordinance, 1982 was promulgated by the Governor. Section 2 of the Ordinance provided that in the 1951 Act, after Section 2, the following Section (deemed Section 3) shall be inserted: E

p. 679

In the interest of Urdu speaking people, Urdu language shall be used as second language, in addition to Hindi for such purposes as are specified in the Schedule.

p. 679

Section 3 of the Ordinance provided that in the Principal F Act, after Section 3, as inserted by the Ordinance, the following Schedule shall be inserted:

p. 679

Entertaining application in Urdu ·presented by the members of the public.

p. 679

Receiving documents in Urdu presented for registration with a Hindi copy thereof.

p. 679

Publication of importan~ Government Rules, Regulation and Notifications.

p. 679

Publication of important Government Advertisements. 5. Translation of Gazette in Urdu. 4. The above Ordinance was repl.aced by the U.P. Official Language (Amendment) (~rd) Ordinance, 1983 (U.P. Ordinance 44of1983). The constitutionality of U.P. Ordinance No.44 of 1983 was put in issue before the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench in Writ Petition No.285 of 1984 by the present appellant U.P. Hindi Sahitya Sammelan. This writ petition was dismissed by the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court, though by separate judgments.

p. 680, margin A

On 07.10.1989, the Uttar Pradesh Official Language (Amendment) Act, 1989 (U.P. Act No.28 of 1989) (for short, "1989 Amendment Act") came into effect. 1989 Amendment Act was enacted by the U.P. Legislature to amend 1951 Act. By this Amendment Act, Section 3 was inserted after Section 2 in 1951 Act providing for Urdu language as second official language for such purposes as may be notified by the State Government from time to time.

p. 680, margin C

In pursuance of the power conferred upon the State Government to notify Urdu as second official language for specified purposes, the State Government issued a notification on 07.10.1989 notifying use of Urdu language as second official language forthe following seven purposes: 1. Entertaining petitions and applications in Urdu and replies thereof in Urdu, 2. receiving documents written in Urdu by the Registration office, 3. publication of important Government Rules, Regulations and Notifications in Urdu also, 4. issuing Government orders and circulars of public importance in Urdu also, 5. publication of important Government advertisements A in Urdu also, 6. publication of Urdu translation also of the Gazette,

pp. 680–681, margin E

exhibition of important signposts in Urdu. ?.Appellant, U.P. Hindi Sahitya Sammelan (Civil Appeal B No.459of1997), which had filed Writ Petition No.285of1984 earlier before the Allahabad High Court challenging the constitutionality of U:P. Ordinance No.44of1983, filed another writ petition before the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench C challenging the 1989 Amendment Act and Notification dated 07.10.1989.

p. 681

This writ petition was heard by the Division Bench. comprising of S.N. Sahay and D.K. Trivedi, JJ.

p. 681

S.N. Sahay, J. in his judgment held that the 1989 D Amendment Act and the notification impugned in the writ petition were ultra vires and liable to be struck down. He, however, observed that the State Legislature shall not be precluded from making any law in future with respect to Urdu E in accordance with the provisions of Articles 345 and 34 7 of the Constitution.

p. 681

D.K. Trivedi, J., on the other hand, did not concur with the view of S.N. Sahay, J. He, in his separate judgment, held that the 1989 Amendment Act and the notification F impugned in the writ petition did not suffer from the constitutional vice and the writ petition was liable to be dismissed.

p. 681

In view of the difference of opinion between the Members of the Bench, the Bench directed the papers to be G laid before the Chief Justice of the High Court for referring the following questions to a third Judge for his opinion: 1 . Whether the impugned enactment can be said to be a valid piece of legislation within the meaning of Article 345 of the Constitution? H 2. Whether the impugned notification suffers from the vice of excessive delegation ? 3. Whether the impugned enactment and the impugned notification are valid and constitutional or ultra vires?

pp. 681–682

The Chief Justice of the High Court then referred the matter to the third Judge, Brijesh Kumar, J. (as His Lordship then was) for answer to the above questions.

p. 682, margin B

Brijesh Kumar, J. answered the questions referred to him as follows: ( 1 ) That while enacting law to officially recognise a second language for use in the State, the State Legislature shall have to consider the provisions of Articles 345 and 34 7 of the Constitution by reading them together; the impugned enactment is, however, valid piece of legislation in view of the judgment of the Division Bench in Writ Petition No. 285/84. 2) The impugned enactment does not suffer from the vice of excessive delegation. (3) In view of the answers given on questions No. ( 1) and (2), I find that the impugned enactment as well as the notification are valid and constitutional

p. 682, margin B

In light of the answers given by the third Judge, the matter was placed before the Division Bench for appropriate orders on the writ petition.

p. 682, margin E

The Division Bench by its order dated 16.08.1996 dismissed the writ petition holding as follows: In view of the learned third Judge, Hon'ble Brijesh Kumar, J., the U.P. Official Language (Amendment )Act, 1989 (U.P. Act No.28 of 1989) adding Section 3 in the U. P. Official Language Act, 1951 is held to be intra vi res. It is further held that the impugned enactment does not suffer from the vice of excessive delegation. The A impugned enactment as well as the notification are held valid and constitutional. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs.

pp. 682–683, margin F

Aggrieved by the judgment and order of the Allahabad High Court dated 16.08.1996, the present appellant filed special leave petition. Leave was granted by this Court on 27.01.1997.

p. 683

On 02.09.2003, the appeal was listed for hearing C before a 2-Judge Bench of this Court. The Bench felt that having regard to the nature of controversy and the important question of law arising in the matter, it was appropriate that matter should be heard by a Bench of 3-Judges.

p. 683

It was then that the matter was listed before the 3- Judge Bench on 29.10.2003. On that day, the Court was of the opinion that the appeal needed to be heard by a Bench of 5-Judg~s as it involves substantial question of law as to the interpretation of Articles 345 and 34 7 of the Constitution. This E is how the appeal has come up before us.

p. 683

Part XVII' of the Constitution deals with official of- A language. It has four chapters. Chapter I relates to the official language of the Union, Chapter II, Chapter Ill and Chapter IV 344. Commission and Committee of Parliament on official language.person~ relate to regional languages, language of the Supreme Court, A High Courts etc. and Special Directive respectively. of D . of

pp. 683–685

It is apposite here to briefly notice the views of prominent authors with regard to Part XVI I of the Constitution. (2) Notwithstanding of clause the Governor of a State with the previous consent of President, authorise the use of the Hindi language, or any other language used for any official purposes of the proceedings Court having principal seat that State: Provided that nothing this clause shall apply any judgment, decree or order passed or made High Court. (3) Notwithstanding anything sub-clause (b) of clause where the of a prescribed any language other than the English language for Bills introduced or Acts passed the Legislature of the or Ordinances promulgated Governor of the or any rule, regulation or bye-law referred paragraph (iii) of that sub-clause, a translation of the same the English language published under the authority of the Governor of the State the Official Gazette of that State shall be deemed the authoritative text thereof the English language under this article . 349. Special procedure for enactment of certain laws relating to language.- During period of fifteen years from the commencement of this Constitution, or amendment making provision for language used for any of the purposes mentioned clause (1) of article 348 shall introduced or moved either House of Parliament without the previous sanction of the President, and the President shall not give his sanction the introduction of any such Bill or the moving of any amendment except after he has taken into consideration the recommendations of Commission constituted under clause of article 344 and the report of the Committee constituted under clause (4) of that article. 350. Language to be used in representations for redress of grievances.- Every person shall entitled submit a representation for the redress of any grievance any officer or authority of the Union or a State any of the languages used Union or the State, the may be. 350A. Facilities for instruction in mother-tongue at primary stage.shall the endeavour of every of every local authority within provide adequate facilities for instruction the mother-tongue the primary stage of education children belonging to linguistic minority groups; and the President may issue such directions to any State as considers necessary or proper for securing the provision of such facilities. It is commonly believed that the keenest controversy in the Constituent Assembly was in regard to the official language. Shri B. Shiva Rao (The Project Committee Chairman) in "The Framing of India's Constitution -A Study" records: "This issue produced so much heat and gave rise to such violent feelings that it was felt necessary from the outset to keep it out of direct discussion in the Assembly. The leaders made every effort to settle it on the basis of general accord, but often it seemed as though a settlement might not be possible. It was not until towards the end of the constitution making process that some kind of agreement could be reached." In Chapter 26 of this volume, it is further recorded : Feelings on the language issue developed formidably almost from the opening of the Constituent Assembly. It was, however, not the Hindi versus Urdu or Hindi versus Hindustani controversy that was raised at this time; there was general 'agreement that Hindustani might be the name for the national language. When the question of the setting up of a .:;ommittee on the rules of procedure for of was discussed, R. V. Dhulekar moved an amendment proposing that the committee should frame rules in Hindustani and not in English. The Chairman requested him to speak in English, as many members could not understand Hindustani; but Dhulekar not only insisted on speaking in Hindustani but made the remark that those who did not know Hindustani had no right to stay in India and were not worthy to be members of the Assembly. The Chairman cut the discussion short by ruling the amendment out of order and prohibiting all further discussion'; but the issue was revived when the report of the committee came up for discussion. The committee recommended that in the Assembly business should be transacted in Hindustani (Hindi or Urdu) or English, but the Chairman was permitted to allow any member unacquainted with these languages to. address the Assembly in his mother tongue. The official records of the Assembly were to be kept in Urdu, Hindi and English.

pp. 686–688, margin A

In Vol. IV of the Framing of India's Constitution - Select Documents, Chapter 13 highlights the provisions relating to Official Language. It is stated therein that neither the draft Constitution prepared by the Constitutional Adviser nor the version as settled by the Drafting Committee contained any provisions relating to official language, but they contained provisions as to the language or the languages to be used in the Union Parliament and the State Legislatures. The language issue figured prominently during the general discussion on the Draft Constitution; and the sharp differences of opinion which developed in the course of the debate revealed the extent of feeling which the question had engendered. Towards the end of August, 1949, Munshi and GopalaswamiAyyangar prepared detailed draft compromise provisions for inclusion in the Draft Constitution. The draft provisions on the official language prepared by Munshi and Gopalaswami Ayyangar as revised by the Drafting Committee had four chapters, Language of A the Union, Regional languages, Language of Supreme Court and High Courts etc. and Special Directive.

pp. 688–689, margin D

Granville Austin in the Indian Constitution - Cornerstone of a Nation, has described Munshi-Ayyangar B formula as half-hearted compromise. He says that it was a compromise between opinions which were not easily reconcilable. There were two basic principles behind the formula, one "we should select one of the languages in India as the common language of the whole of India". The second c principle was "that the numerals to be used for all official Union purposes should be what have been described as the all-India forms of Indian numerals." The members of the Assembly voted for the Munshi-Ayyangarformula.

p. 689

H. M. Seervai in Constitutional Law of India - A D Critical Commentary (Fourth Edition)¥ has also given a brief historical account of the language issue that erupted in the -the A course of discussion on the Draft Constitution. H. M. Seervai states that having regard to the place given to the Union in our Constitution, the importance of the official language of the Union cannot be overrated. Drawing the distinction between English might~y and Hindi, on the one hand, and other languages mentioned A in Schedule VIII, on the other hand, the learned author says: English was and is a de facto medium of instruction in various Universities. The Constitution and the Official Languages Act have continued its use for official B purposes of the Union of India. Therefore, English stands in a class by itself, because of historical reasons and because of express constitutional and legislative provisions. Hindi also occupies a position by itself. It is the official language of the Union of India and the c Constitution contemplates that it should gradually replace English. Therefore, Hindi is also in a class by itself. But the other languages mentioned in Sch. VIII stand on a different footing. The retention of English as a medium is justified and the substitution of English by Hindi can D be justified for reasons mentioned above. But the substitution of any other regional language for English cannot be justified because there would be other languages spoken by large groups of people which are capable of being the media of instruction in Universities. E Since there are large numbers of people in the city whose mother tongue is Marathi, Gujarati, Hindi, Tamil, Malayalam, and Urdu, it would be difficult to justify the selection of one or more of these languages as a medium of instruction to the exclusion of the others, if the principle F of selection is that University education should be in the mother tongue.

pp. 689–691

Acharya Dr. Durga Das Basu, in his commentary on the Constitution of India, Volume 9, 2011 while dealing with G Part XVII under the sub-title "Need for a National Language" observes that the Constitution makers failed to declare one language as the national language of India and what has been provided in the Constitution is mainly a compromise between the diverse claims. Dr. Basu then observes that what has been provided in the Constitution is not a national language but - (a) an "official language" for the Union (Articles 343-344 ); (b) regional official languages for the States (Articles 345-34 7); and (c) official language (a) for purposes of proceedings in the Supreme Court and High Courts and (b) for Bills, Acts, Ordinances, Regulations, bye-laws at the Union and State level. Dr. Basu in his treatise quotes the Constitutional Law of India byT.K. Tope', wherein the author has stated that Hindi has not been accepted as the national language by the Constitution; the Constitution has not laid down any language as the national language.

pp. 691–692

Now, it is time to turn to the two Articles, Articles 345 and 347, which have fallen for consideration on the issue, whether it is constitutional for the U.P. Legislative Assembly to declare Urdu as the second official language through the 1989 Amendment Act once it has declared Hindi as the official language in 1951 under Article 345 of the Constitution of India. The submission by Mr. Shyam Divan, learned senior counsel for the appellant, is that having regard to the special constitutional status of the Hindi language, where the Legislature of a State by law adopts Hindi as the official language, two things necessarily follow (one) the State Legislature is precluded from de-recognising Hindi as an official language and (two) the State Legislature is precluded from adopting any other official language. The argument of the learned senior counsel for the appellant is founded on the premise that Part XVI I of the Constitution constitutes complete scheme with regard to official language. The two key features of Part XVII, according to learned senior counsel, are: a special status to the Hindi language and a special role of balancing entrusted to the President on the sensitive and potentially divisive issue of language.

p. 692, margin C

What logically follows from the argument of Mr. Shyam · Divan is that the text of Article 345 gives two options to the State Legislature, one, adoption of any one or more of the languages in use in the State (Option 1) and the other, Hindi (Option 2) and once Option 2 is exercised, the power of the State Legislature gets exhausted. If the argument of Mr. Shyam Divan is accepted, it would mean that the use of the word "or" signifies that Option 1 would be available to the Legislature of State only if it does not go in for Option 2. Once the State Legislature has exercised Option 2, and adopted Hindi as the language to be used for all or any of the official purposes of the State, it cannot go down the route of Option 1. We find it difficult to accept the submission of learned senior counsel. Merely because Hindi is mentioned explicitly or separately and it is adopted as official language by the State, we do not think that the Constitution forecloses the State Legislature's option to adopt any other language in use in the State as official language.

p. 693, margin A

Nothing in Article 345, in our view, bars declaring one or more of the languages in use in the State, in addition to Hindi, as the second official language. This can only be at the cost of distorting the provision contained in Article 345. The significance of the word "or" occurring before "Hindi" is to dispense with the requirement of Hindi being "in use", while the requirement of being "in use" for any other language to be declared official language has to be satisfied for exercise of power by the State Legislature under Article 345. Dispensing this requirement for Hindi was meant to absorb the adoption of Hindi across 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 inArticle 345 is to facilitate adoption of Hindi across the States whether or not Hindi is in use in a particular State. Any other construction to Article 345 would be unduly interfering with the language compromise adopted by the Constitution.

pp. 693–694, margin D

Part XVII of the Constitution as its scheme suggests is accommodative. After all, language policies are constructs and they change over time.

p. 694, margin A

The plain language of Article 345 which empowers the State Legislature to make law for adoption of one or more of the languages in use in the State leaves no manner of doubt that such power may be exercised by the State Legislature from time to time. A different intention does not appear from the plain language of Article 345. We do not find any indication that the power can be exercised by the State Legislature only once and that power gets exhausted if the State Legislature adopts Hindi as the official language of the State. In our view, the State Legislature is at liberty to exercise its discretion under Article 345 from time to time for specified purpose. It does not appear to us that Hindi once adopted as official language of the State in exercise of its power by State Legislature under Article 345, the State Legislature ceases to have any law making power under Article 345. The judgment of this Court in Nasiruddin has no application for the purpose of construction of Article 345.

p. 694, margin B

We shall deal with the expression "subject to" a little later but suffice it to say here that there are many State Legislatures who have adopted other officially recognized language(s) in addition to Hindi such as Bihar, Haryana, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh and Uttarakhand. Delhi has also adopted Punjabi and Urdu as other officially recognized languages in addition to Hindi. Obviously, this would not have been possible but for the constitutional permissibility. ;'.~Schiffman, v.

p. 694, margin E

The position that Hindi has been mentioned A separately in Article 345 in the context of the preceding expression "adopt any one or more of the languages in use in the State" is to promote and spread Hindi in terms of Article 351 though it may not be spoken or used by the people in the State. Article 345 enables the State Legislature to adopt any B number of languages which are in use in the State for all or any of the official purposes of the State. It is not necessary that there must be demand made on that behalf to the State Government or if there is demand, the State Legislature cannot make law adopting a language in use in the State as second C official language. This is one of the distinguishing features between Articles 345 and 34 7. If Hindi is in use in a particular State then it does not foreclose the State's power or discretion to adopt any language other than Hindi as the official language D provided such language is 'in use' in that State. The use of the word "may" in Article 345 is not without significance. It indicates that State has discretion in adopting the language or languages in use in the State and so also Hindi.· Such discretion can be exercised any number of times by the State Legislature as it E deems proper. The only restriction to such legislative power is in Article 347 in a given situation which we shall explain after some more discussion.

p. 695

Part XVI I of the Constitution titled "official language", Mr. Shyam Divan, learned senior counsel argues, is a self- F contained part of the Constitution akin to a complete Code. His submission is that the provisions in Part XVII constitute a complete scheme with respect to official language. We are in agreement with the learned senior counsel to this extent. He is also right in his submission that Hindi language has a special G status and particularly in Part XVII. In this regard, reference to Articles 343(1 ), 344(2)(a), 345, 346 proviso, 348(2) and 351 has been rightly made. The above provisions in the Constitution, in our view, prescribe larger constitutional charter for Hindi but this position in no way leads to the conclusion suggested by the learned senior counsel for the appellant that where the Legislature of a State by law adopts Hindi as the official language, the State Legislature is precluded from adopting any other official language. As noted earlier, nothing in Article 345 bars adopting any other official language in use in the State, in addition to Hindi, as the second official language.

pp. 695–696

It is true that Part XVII specifies the role of the President (or for that matter, 'Union Government') under numerous provisions. The President may respond to a demand for an additional official language where the requirements of Article 34 7 are fulfilled. Before directing that a particular language shall also be officially recognized throughout a State or any part of the State for such purpose as the President may specify, the President must be satisfied that "a substantial portion of the population of a State desire the use of any language spoken by them to be recognized by that State". Article 3508 provides a machinery by which the President may make an assessment with respect to demand of linguistic minorities. However, we are not persuaded to accept the argument of the learned senior counsel for the appellant that arrangement in Part XVII of the Constitution seeks to ensure that the States do not yield to demands for multiple official languages sequentially and this power is reserved exclusively with the President (Union Executive) .

p. 696, margin B

The expression "subject to the provisions of Articles 346 and 34 7" occurring in Article 345 does not make Article 345 subordinate to Articles 346 and 34 7 as suggested by the learned senior counsel. The effect of the expression "subject to ........ " is that any law made by the Legislature of the State is subject to directions existing, if any, issued by the President under Article 347 when the State Legislature exercises its power under Article 345. Once the direction is issued by the President under Article 34 7, it is not open to the State Legislature to tinker with such direction in any manner. In other words, the exercise of power by the State Legislature should not be in conflict in any manner with the directions that may have been issued by the President under Article 347. The plenary power of the State under Article 345 is limited to this extent only. Except to the limited extent as noted above, it is not correct to say that power of the State Legislature under Article 345 is subordinate or servient to Article 34 7. Part XVII must be read as a whole and, in our view, Articles 345 and 347 should be construed so as to make it consistent with federal structure and so also the other provisions of this Chapter.

pp. 696–697, margin F

The law making power of the State Legislature under Article 345 is restricted by virtue of the expression "subject to ...... " against the direction issued by the President under Article 347 occupying the field. Absent such direction, the State Legislature is not prevented in any manner in exercising its power under Article 345.

p. 697, margin C

We have, thus, no hesitation in holding that in the absence of direction issued by the President under Article 34 7 of the Constitution, there is no restriction, restraint or impediment for the State Legislature in adopting one of the languages in use in the State as an official language under Article 345 of the Constitution of India.

p. 697, margin D

As seen above, Article 345 deals with the power of the State Legislature while Article 34 7 refers to the power of the President. These two provisions prescribe a different procedure for making law or issuing directions for recognising a language as official language. The requirement, "a substantial portion of the population of a State desire the use of any language spoken by them to be recognized by that State" in Article 34 7 is not a requirement under Article 345 for the State Legislature to enact law adopting the language as official language of the State, which is in use in the State. We think that the requirement of Article 34 7 can be read necessary requirement for the State Legislature to exercise its power under Article 345. We are in agreement with view expressed by D.K. Trivedi, J. wherein he said, "The limitation imposed on the State Legislature under Article of the Constitution of India is that the said language must in use in the State and further if any direction has been by the President under Article 347 then the same will have binding effect ...... ".

pp. 697–698, margin F

The criterion for adoption of one or more of languages, other than Hindi, in the State is that those languages must be "in the use in State". This criterion must be satisfied at the time the State Legislature exercises its power under Article 345. The State Legislature cannot adopt any language as official language if such language is not used in the However, there is no impediment for the State Legislature declare Hindi to be an official language even if Hindi is use" in Karnataka. The reason for this is to be found constitutional compromise on the linguistic issue and the constitutional charter for Hindi to facilitate the spread of across India.

p. 698, margin C

Learned senior counsel for the appellant argues Chapter II of Part XVII engrafts a unique dichotomy involving the State Legislature at the State level and the Union Executive (the President) at the Central level. It provides two routes designating a language as an official language in a State; the adoption by law by the Legislature of the State; and direction by the President of India. These two routes complementary. Learned senior counsel is right submission that the Constitution of India provides two as noted above for designating a language as an language in a State. However, the inference drawn by him where the State Legislature_ has adopted a language official language, and there is a demand for recognition of A another language which is used by a substantial proportion of the population of a State, the Constitution provides only one method for designating another language as the official language, which is through a Presidential direction under Article 347, is not entirely correct. Insofar as Article 347 is concerned, B the learned senior counsel is right that if there is a demand for recognition of another language which is used by a substantial proportion of the population of a State, this could be done through Presidential direction under Article 34 7. However, he is not right that this is the only method for designating another C language as the official language. If the construction of the learned senior counsel is accepted, it would restrict and limit the power of the State Legislature in adopting one or more languages in use in the State as official language. The D curtailment of the State Legislature's power under Article 345, as suggested by the learned senior counsel is neither constitutionally sound nor does it flow from the scheme of Part XVII of the Constitution generally and the scheme engrafted under Articles 345 and 347. We do not find ourselves in E agreement with the learned senior counsel that a situation where there is a demand for another official language, Article 34 7 is the only manner known in the Constitution to respond to such a demand. In our view, this is misunderstanding of Articles 345 and 347.

pp. 698–699, margin E

In what we have stated above, we are unable to agree with the learned senior counsel for the appellant that since the Statement of Objects and Reasons accompanying the Uttar Pradesh Official Language (Amendment) Bill, 1989 expressly records "demand for the declaration of Urdu as the second G language of the State was made from time to time", the impugned law covers the situation contemplated in Article 34 7 and, therefore, invoking the legislative power by the State Legislature under Article 345 is constitutionally bad.

p. 699

A bare text of Article 350 will show that it confers a constitutional right on every person to submit a representation for redress of any grievance to any office of the Union or the State in any of the language used in the Union or the State. Learned senior counsel for the appellant does not dispute the position that the State Executive may adopt different languages for the convenience of the citizenry. Obviously, then the State Legislature shall be within its constitutional power with regard to field covered by Article 345 to legislate by adopting a language or languages in use in the State subsequent to the adoption of Hindi as official language and so also adoption of more official languages. The exercise of legislative power by the State cannot be said to impinge upon the power given to the President under Article 34 7 unless a Presidential directive is occupying the field.

p. 700, margin A

Article 367 of the Constitution is an interpretation al · provision. Clause (1) of Article 367 reads: 367. lnterpretation-(1) Unless the context otherwise requires, the General Clauses Act, 1897, shall, subject to any adaptations and modifications that may be made therein under Article 372, apply for the interpretation of this Constitution as it applies for the interpretation of an Act of the Legislature of the Dominion of India. (2) xxx (3)

p. 700, margin C

By virtue of the above provision in the Constitution, the provision of Section 14€ of the General Clauses Act, 1897 applies to the interpretation of the Constitution and that leaves A no manner of doubt that the State Legislature may exercise its power under Article 345 from time to time. We do not find any merit in the argument of the learned senior counsel for the appellant that Section 14 of the General Clauses Act has no application in the present case since a different intention B appears in the constitutional scheme of Part XVII. We have already explained the constitutional scheme of Part XVII and so also ambit and scope of Articles 345 and 347. For the reasons we have indicated above, we do not find any merit in the argument of the learned senior counsel for the appellant C that the power of the State Legislature under Article 345 gets exhausted after a single use. The argument is constitutionally flawed and does not flow from Articles 345 and 347. In our view, it will be unreasonable to construe Article 345 in the D manner suggested by the learned senior counsel for the appellant. It is said that law and language are both organic in their mode of development. In India, these are evolving through the process of accepting legitimate aspirations of the speakers of different languages. Indian language laws are not rigid but E accommodative - the object being to secure linguistic secularism.

pp. 700–701, margin F

We hold, as we must, that neither insertion of Section 3 in the 1989AmendmentAct nor the impugned notification in pursuance of the above provision notifying Urdu as the second F language for seven purposes is unconstitutional.

p. 701

There is no merit in the appeal and it is dismissed with no order as to costs.

p. 701