GUJARAT UNIVERSITY V. KRISHNA RANGANATH AIR 1963 SC 703
FACTS
Shrikant, a candidate, registered for the First Year Arts program at St. Xavier’s College, an affiliated institution of the University of Gujarat. He was assigned to the section where instruction was conducted in English. Following the successful completion of the First Year Arts course in March 1961, Shrikant expressed his intention to pursue courses geared towards the University’s Intermediate Arts examination through the English medium.
The Principal of the College conveyed to Shrikant that, in accordance with the stipulations outlined in the Gujarat University Act of 1949 and the University’s Statutes 207, 208, and 209 of the Senate, as amended in 1961, he could not permit attendance in classes where English was the medium of instruction without the University's explicit authorization.
In response, Shri Krishna, Shrikant’s father, submitted a request to the University’s Vice Chancellor seeking permission for Shrikant to participate in "English medium studies" at St. Xavier’s College. The University's Registrar, however, rejected the proposal, though Shrikant was granted approval to use English as the medium for examinations, but not for instructional purposes, as stated in another correspondence.
ISSUES-
In response to the Writ Petition, the Petitioners put forth numerous arguments. To address these, a Six Judge Bench of the Supreme Court sought to answer two key questions:
JUDGEMENT-
In a majority decision, with five judges in favour and one against, the Judgment sided with the Respondents. The majority held that Item 11 of List II exclusively grants States the power to legislate on matters related to basic or secondary education. Consequently, the authority to legislate on the language of instruction in primary or secondary educational institutions lies with State Legislatures.
This power concerning the language of instruction is not an independent legislative category; rather, it falls under the jurisdiction of State Legislatures empowered to legislate on education, unless explicitly revoked. The authority to legislate regarding language of instruction is considered to belong to the Union under Items 63 to 65, given the extensive scope of these items.
Additionally, Item 66 List I grants the Union the power to legislate regarding language of instruction, particularly when it directly impacts the coordination and establishment of standards in higher education, research, and technical institutions. The State possesses the power to establish curricula and courses of study in institutions listed under Entry 66 (excluding those in Entries 63 to 65), as well as to specify the language in which instruction will be conducted.
However, the Union Parliament holds an overarching legislative authority to ensure that mandated syllabi, courses of study, and chosen language do not compromise educational standards or hinder coordination of such standards, whether on a national or regional basis. While the powers of the Union and State are distinct in the Exclusive Lists, some overlap is inevitable.
A universal test cannot be devised to address every issue that may arise on this matter. On one hand, it falls squarely within the purview of the State Legislature to establish curricula, courses of study, and determine the language of instruction. On the other hand, the Union has the jurisdiction to legislate regarding the language of instruction to ensure the coordination and establishment of standards, i.e., to ensure that standards are maintained or enhanced.
The fact that the Union may not have fully exercised its powers, or chose not to do so, does not grant the State the authority to legislate on a matter constitutionally designated to the Union. Nevertheless, there may still be legislative provisions in enactments established in furtherance of separate, distinct authorities that may conflict even within their authorized domains. Then there is the matter of conflict and superiority, which may have to be resolved using the "doctrine of pith and substance" applied to the challenged enactment.