Gujarat University v. Krishna Ranganath Mudholkar, AIR 1963 SC 703

Bench:

• Chief Justice Bhuvaneshwar Prasad Sinha
• Justice S.J. Imam
• Justice K. Subba Rao
• Justice K.N. Wanchoo
• Justice J.C. Shah
• Justice N. Rajagopala Ayyangar

Facts:

Shrikant Mudholkar, son of Krishna Ranganath Mudholkar, passed the Secondary School Certificate (SSC) Examination in Bombay in March 1960. His mother tongue was Marathi, and he completed his education in Marathi. He enrolled at St. Xavier’s College, affiliated with Gujarat University, for the First Year Arts course, where the medium of instruction was English. After successfully completing this course, he applied for the Intermediate Arts course, intending to continue his education in English. However, the Gujarat University Act, 1949, and subsequent amendments in 1961, particularly Statutes 207, 208, and 209, restricted English as a medium of instruction.

The University refused to allow him to pursue studies in English, citing its policy to promote Gujarati and Hindi as the exclusive media of instruction. The Mudholkars challenged this decision in the Gujarat High Court, arguing that it violated their rights and the University’s legal authority. The High Court ruled in favor of Mudholkar, leading the University to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Issues:

1. Whether Gujarat University had the authority under the Gujarat University Act, 1949, to prescribe Gujarati or Hindi as the exclusive medium of instruction.
2. Whether the State Legislature had the legislative competence to impose such restrictions, considering Entry 66 of List I (Union List) of the Constitution, which pertains to the coordination and determination of standards in higher education.

Arguments:

Petitioners (Mudholkars): The Gujarat University Act, 1949, did not authorize the University to impose an exclusive medium of instruction. The State Legislature could not legislate on matters affecting the coordination and determination of educational standards, which fall under Entry 66 of the Union List.

Respondents (Gujarat University and the State of Gujarat): The University had the authority to determine the medium of instruction under its powers conferred by the Gujarat University Act. Education, including universities, was a subject under the State List (Entry 11 of List II at the time, now Entry 25 of List III).

Ratio Decidendi:

1. University’s Lack of Authority: The Supreme Court held that neither the Gujarat University Act, 1949, nor its amendments conferred power on the University to impose Gujarati or Hindi as the exclusive medium of instruction.
2. Legislative Competence and Entry 66: The Court ruled that the power to coordinate and determine standards in higher education was vested in the Union under Entry 66 of List I. The State Legislature could not enact laws that affected these standards.
3. Overlap Between Lists: Although “education” was under the State List, the Union’s power to legislate on “coordination and determination of standards” under Entry 66 prevailed. Any State law that impacted this coordination would be invalid.

Observations:

• The power to prescribe a medium of instruction falls under the broader subject of education. However, if the imposition of a regional language affects national educational standards, it encroaches upon the Union’s domain under Entry 66.
• The State has the power to regulate education but cannot make laws that disrupt uniformity and coordination in higher education across India.
• The Statement of Objects and Reasons of a statute may help in understanding the legislative intent, but they cannot override the actual provisions of the law.

Decision:

The Supreme Court upheld the Gujarat High Court’s ruling and struck down the University’s policy. It declared that Gujarat University had no authority to impose Gujarati or Hindi as the sole medium of instruction. The decision reinforced that matters related to the coordination and determination of standards in higher education fall under the exclusive domain of the Union.

Important Terms:

1. Entry 66 of List I (Union List): Grants the Union Parliament power over coordination and determination of standards in institutions for higher education and research.
2. Entry 25 of List III (Concurrent List): Covers education, including technical and medical education, and universities.
3. Medium of Instruction: The language used to teach students; in this case, the Court ruled that universities could not unilaterally impose a specific medium.
4. Doctrine of Repugnancy: If a State law conflicts with a Union law in a subject where both have jurisdiction, the Union law prevails.
5. Legislative Competence: The authority of a legislative body to make laws on specific subjects as per the Constitution.