MOTHER-TONGUE - APEX COURT'S VIEWS

The Supreme Court on Tuesday today frowned upon the imposition of mother-tongue as a compulsory medium of instruction in educational institutions and warned it could go against the interests of students struggling in the present competitive world dominated by English language.

A three judge bench of Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan, Justices P Sathasivam and B S Chauhan felt if states try to impose their mother-tongue on unwilling students, it could turn counter-productive and make them ineligible even for clerical jobs.

"They are unable to get even clerical posts. It is easy to say things. How do we survive in the world?" the bench told the Karnataka government for its decision to impose Kannada language as a compulsory medium of instructions for Class 1 to 1V.

The apex court rejected the argument of senior counsel P P Rao appearing for the state who, quoting experts, claimed mother-tongue was essential to be imparted at an impressionable age for overall intellectual and cultural development of the child.

"Parents are ready to pay Rs 40,000 to Rs 50,000 for getting their children admitted in English medium schools. This is the real state of affairs. They do not want to send them to schools of their mother-tongue. It should be left to the parents," the bench observed.

The apex court said if mother-tongue is sought to be imposed on the students, it would only further aggravate the problems of those studying in villages.

"Otherwise, students from villages can't compete with their peers in urban areas," the bench observed.

The apex court made the remarks while refusing to stay a Karnataka High Court judgement which had quashed an order passed by the state government making it mandatory for all schools to have Kannada language alone as a medium of instruction in all government and private schools from Class 1 to 1V.

The high court also had asked the state to grant permission to those institutions which wanted to start new schools with English as a medium of instruction.

Karnataka High court's judgment on equal right to women.

Court upholds women’s right to property share


In a landmark judgement, the Karnataka High Court on Wednesday struck down a Central amendment to the Hindu Succession Act limiting the right of women to a share of parental property, before December 20, 2004.

The Centre had carried out several amendments to the Hindu Succession Act. While the amendment gave equal right to daughters in the share of parental property and treated them on a par with their brothers, it was made applicable only after December 20, 2004. Thus, women had no right to a share of any property sold before that date. Other amendments to the Act were in respect of a will or testament and partition of property. The amendment had not recognised oral partition. The amendment to the Act had come into force from September 9, 2005.

A resident of Bangalore, Shanta, had challenged the limitation relating to sale of property before December 20, 2004. She had questioned the legality of the action of her father and her brothers in selling property and not giving her a share. She termed as illegal and ultra vires the amendment, saying that it ran against the spirit of equality. She also challenged the constitutional validity of proviso 39 to Section 6 (1) C of Hindu Succession Act (Amendment) 2005.

Justice Ananda Byrareddy upheld her contentions and struck down the proviso limiting the right of women to inherit a share of parental property.

The matter may be politicized, but, the lawyers should stand by the hon'ble judge.

Even as the opposition is mounting pressure on the government to name the minister who allegedly called and tried to influence Justice R Regupathi of the Madras High Court, former Attorney General Soli J Sorabjee has demanded that the judge himself name the caller.

"The HC judge should name the minister. His silence is fuelling politicisation of the issue and giving an impression that people could call up judges and get away with it. Naming the minister would help send a strong signal that no one can mess around with judiciary," Sorabjee told TOI.

A day after the controversy broke, Chief Justice of India K G Balakrishnan had taken strong exception to a minister calling up a judge and seeking favour in a pending case. He said the minister had committed gross impropriety, which amounted to interference in the administration of justice.

Even though Leader of Opposition in Rajya Sabha Arun Jaitley demanded the name saying "a minister is not a `raja' who is not accountable", the HC judge would not be game in revealing the identity of the caller, for even the Supreme Court judges have in the past shied away from naming persons in identical situations.

Take for example of the infamous Hawala scam case, which in 1997 was monitored by a three-judge Bench comprising then Chief Justice J S Verma and Justices S P Bharucha and S C Sen. During one of the hearings, the then CJI sparked high drama by blurting out that "we must tell of outside pressure on us for quite sometime now to see that we recuse ourselves from the case... People are trying to reach us. First a person tried to reach me. The same person approached brother Sen... Today they have contacted brother Bharucha."

None of them recused. But none of the judges, despite being contacted by "the same person" revealed the identity of the person, who clearly made an attempt to interfere with the course of administration of justice.

That was not the only incident. In 2005, Justice S N Variava heading a three-judge Bench whipped up a similar controversy during the hearing of a PIL filed by then MP and BJP leader Sushil Kumar Modi and JD(U) leader Rajiv Ranjan Singh `Lallan' seeking cancellation of the bail of Lalu Prasad in a DA case.

Stunning everyone in the court, Justice Variava had revealed that "someone" from the Patna High Court had called him to know whether the trial court judge in the fodder scam case could be replaced. But, the judge never named him.

Two days later on March 17, 2005, Justice Variava suo motu clarified: "The person concerned has since clarified to me that the inquiry was just an academic query. I am satisfied that the explanation is correct and my original inference that there was an attempt to influence me was wrong."

Three months later, Prasad's lawyer B B Singh in open court dared the judge to name the person who made that innocuous query. When Justice Variava asked as to which person the lawyer was referring to, Singh had said: "This person is close to your Lordship and is from a particular caste."

But, Justice Variava refused to name the person saying: "As far as I am concerned, the matter is closed. It was a social encounter and had no concern with the matter. There is no reason why the name should be disclosed."

"It is a gross impropriety," -CJI.

Chief Justice India K G Balakrishanan has strongly reacted to the sensational disclosure by Justice R Regupathi of the Madras High Court that a Union minister had called him to influence him to grant anticipatory bail to the accused in a forgery case.

"It is a gross impropriety," said a distressed Justice Balakrishnan.

Even though the CJI left it to the government to look into the matter and take a call on what action should be taken against the errant minister, he left little doubt as to what he expects of the government. "It is not done. It is a gross impropriety for a politician or anyone to call up the judge regarding a pending case. It is an interference in the course of justice," he told TOI.

Asked whether it required a probe, the CJI said it was for the government to look into the matter and take appropriate action so that no one, how so ever high he might be, dares to interfere with the course of justice.

Justice Regupathi had stunned everyone on Monday by announcing in the open court that a Union minister had called him and tried to influecne him to grant anticipatory bail to father-son duo, C Krishnamurthy and S Kiruba Shridhar, both of whom were booked by the CBI for allegedly using the services of a Pondicherry University official and a middle man to inflate the marks of the latter.

Justice Balakrishnan said: "We in judiciary do not brook any interference in the course of justice. In my entire career, not a single minister, official or anyone has ever called me regarding a pending case."

"We do not approve of any such attempt," he said and gave a clean chit to most of the politicians, ministers and bureaucrats. "Mostly the ministers know how the judiciary functions in the country. They have never interfered in the justice delivery system," he said.

Justice Balakrishnan said that politicians should mind their business and leave the judiciary alone. "In politics, they may do whatever they like. But, they should leave the judiciary alone," he said.