TEAM HERALD
teamherald@herald-goa.com
PANJIM: Divided opinions greeted the Supreme Court order with even members of the consultative committee to formulate the policy sticking to their respective stands on the Supreme Court order. While a certain section welcomed the decision, another section has been vehement in saying that this order does not refer to Goa at all.
Even though the Supreme Court has very clearly gone beyond the Karnataka issue and tries to settle as per law the issue of the medium of instruction, there is no unanimity in the voices that have spoken out after the order, raising fears that this issue could still remain on the burner, albeit a back burner to be brought to the fore as and when convenient.
The High Court in the Karnataka case had referred the following questions to the Constitution Bench:
“(i) What does Mother tongue mean? If it referred to as the language in which the child is comfortable with, then who will decide the same?
(ii) Whether a student or a parent or a citizen has a right to choose a medium of instruction at primary stage?
(iii) Does the imposition of mother tongue in any way affect the fundamental rights under Article 14, 19, 29 and 30 of the Constitution?
(iv) Whether the Government recognized schools are inclusive of both government aided schools and private & unaided schools?
(v) Whether the State can by virtue of Article 350-A of the Constitution compel the linguistic minorities to choose their mother tongue only as medium of instruction in primary schools?”
The Karnataka AG had submitted Article 21A of the Constitution is titled ‘Right to Education’ and provides that the State shall provide free and compulsory education to all children of the age of six to fourteen years in such manner as the State may, by law, determine. He argued that Article 21A is thus the sole depository of the right to education and it is not open for any citizen to invoke any other fundamental right like Article 19(1)(a) or Article 21 to contend that he has a right to be educated in a medium of instruction of his choice.
He said that Parliament has made the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 under Article 21A of the Constitution, and Section 29(2)(f) of this Act provides that the medium of instruction shall, as far as practicable, be the child’s mother tongue.
He submitted that the High Court was, therefore, not right in coming to the conclusion that the right to choose a medium of instruction is implicit in the right to education under Articles 21 and 21A of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court struck this argument down stating Article 19 1(a) overrides all these arguments.
