V. Rajasekaran vs Union Territory of Pondicherry and Others

Manmohan Singh Liberhan, C.J.—The only prayer made by the petitioner is for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents

to hold the entrance test to the medical institution in the Union Territory of Pondicherry in Tamil Medium also. It has been vehemently, eloquently

and in the usual style of Mr. Rathinam''s forceful emotional approach to legal issues, contended that the direction be given to the respondents to

hold entrance test to medical institution in Tamil language too, in holding the entrance test in Tamil. Not holding it violates Article 29(2) of the

Constitution of India. Yet the counsel wants to rely on the bigone eras.

In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Hindi Hitrakshak Samiti and others Vs. Union of India and others, wherein it is held as under (at

page 853):

Where a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution was filed seeking directing that pre-medical studies in medical and dental examination

should be permitted in Hindi and other regional languages and not in English alone, and the admission to the institutions should not be refused

and/or examinations should not be held in English alone if the examinees or the entrants seek to appear in Hindi or other regional language, it was

held that the petition under Article 32 was not maintainable. The jurisdiction conferred on the Supreme Court under Article 32 is an important and

integral part of the Constitution but violation of a fundamental right is the sine qua non for seeking enforcement of those rights by the Supreme

Court. It could not be said that in not holding entrance examination in any particular language, be it is Hindi or regional language, there was denial

of admission on the ground of language, so as to violate Article 29(2) of the Constitution. Every educational institution has right to determine or set

out its method of education and conditions of examination and studies provided these do not directly or indirectly have any causal connection with

violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution. It may be that Hindi or other regional languages are more, appropriate medium

of imparting education to very many and it may be appropriate and proper to hold the examinations, entrance or otherwise, in any particular

regional or Hindi language, or it may be that Hindi or other regional language because of development of that language, is not, yet appropriate

medium to transmute or test the knowledge or capacity that could be had in medical and dental disciplines, it is a matter of formulation of policy by

the State or educational authorities in change of any particular situation. Where the existence of a fundamental right has to be established by

acceptance of a particular polity or a course of action for which there is no legal compulsion or statutory imperative, and on which there are

divergent views, the same cannot be sought to be enforced by Section 32 of the Constitution. Article 32 of the Constitution cannot be a means, to

indicate policy preference. Thus, 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 appropriate 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 the Supreme Court, and order under

Article 32 of the Constitution in those circumstances, would not be an appropriate remedy.

The facts and the question raised in the present writ petition are squarely covered by the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court. We

are further of the considered view that it being, a policy decision and for the policy makers to decide to hold the lest in the language needed for the

particular technical education, no interference is, called for from the Court. The judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court is not only a binding

precedent, but is the law of the land. At this stage, learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the judgment pointed out by the learned

Counsel needs review and reconsideration. That is the privilege of the learned Counsel to submit before the Supreme Court. The High Courts

cannot review or reconsider the law laid down by the Honpurabie Supreme Court. The writ petition is dismissed. Consequently, W.M.P. No.

13214 of 1998 is also dismissed.