Author : Harsh Tewari, Bennett University
To the Point
India takes pride in its linguistic and cultural diversity, but it frequently serves as a focal point for social unrest. Language can divide as much as it can bring people together, as evidenced by recent events in Maharashtra and Karnataka where people who spoke Hindi faced hostility and unintentional stereotyping of South Indian languages as “jalebi language” by some North Indians. This article examines these disputes from a legal perspective, looking at how the Constitution aims to strike a balance between individual rights, diversity, and unity in a multilingual country.
Use of Legal Jargon
Constitutional Provisions
Official Language
Linguistic Minorities
Federalism
Fundamental Rights
States Reorganisation Act
Directive Principles of State Policy
Definitions of Legal Jargon :
1. Constitutional Provisions: These are particular articles that establish the principles of government, rights, and obligations. Articles 29, 30, 343–351 are important for linguistic issues.
2. Official Language: The language that a State or the Union has chosen to use for official correspondence. Article 343 designates Hindi and English as the official languages of the Union.
3. Linguistic Minorities: Groups with a mother tongue that differs from the state’s dominant language are known as linguistic minorities. Their rights to education and culture are safeguarded by Articles 29 and 30.
4. Federalism: A system in which the Union and the States share authority. States in India are free to designate their own recognized languages under the country’s linguistic federalism.
5. Fundamental Rights: These are the fundamental rights protected by Part III of the Constitution, which includes protection from discrimination and freedom of speech and expression (Articles 19–21).
6. States Reorganisation Act: This significant piece of legislation, which balanced local identities with national unity, reorganized India’s states primarily along linguistic lines in 1956.
7. Directive Principles of State Policy: Provisions in Part IV of the Constitution that instruct the State to advance welfare policies, such as promoting interlinguistic harmony.
The Proof
Recent controversies:
1. Maharashtra: In 2023–2024, there were reports of harassment of Hindi speaking migrant workers in parts of Mumbai and Pune by local groups who said Hindi “threatened” Marathi sense of self. In certain instances, workers and street vendors who said only Hindi were beaten. This sentiment is frequently used by political parties to promote a sense of regional pride.
2. Karnataka: Tensions erupted on social media amid the recent discussions surrounding the “Kannada Language Priority Bill.” Some Kannadigas accused Hindi speakers of “linguistic imperialism” and made disparaging remarks about them. In certain places, where Hindi advertising signs were vandalized, this turned into street-level violence.
3. On the other hand, it is also true that a few Hindi speakers to North India make fun of South Indian languages, referring to them as “jalebi languages” due to their intricate phonetics and distinctive script. Millions of people whose identity is closely linked to their mother tongue are alienated by this casual racism, which normalizes prejudice.
These incidents demonstrate the multifaceted nature of linguistic chauvinism. It demonstrates how readily identity politics can triumph over the equality, fraternity, and diversity-respecting guarantees found in the constitution.
Abstract
A fundamental component of India’s federal structure is linguistic diversity. The Constitution’s framers recognized Hindi as the official language but allowed English as an associate official language (Article 343), gave states the authority to designate their own official languages (Article 345), and explicitly protected linguistic minorities (Articles 29–30). Nevertheless, there is frequently conflict in the real world despite these provisions.
The goal of the law is to guarantee that no community experiences linguistic dominance or marginalization. The right to maintain one’s culture, language, and script has been affirmed by courts on numerous occasions. But the enduring social tensions and daily discrimination serve as a reminder that laws by themselves are unable to eradicate ingrained prejudices. For pluralism to be respected and celebrated, society and the law must cooperate.
Case Laws
Rajendran v. State of Madras (1968)
In Rajendran v. State of Madras, the Supreme Court examined the scope of Article 29(2), which prohibits discrimination in admission to state-run or state-aided educational institutions on grounds of religion, race, caste, language, or any of them. Here, the Madras government reserved seats for certain linguistic minorities to ensure that their language and culture would be preserved through education. This reservation was challenged as discriminatory. The Supreme Court upheld the reservation policy, ruling that the state could take positive steps to protect linguistic minorities and promote educational opportunities for them. This decision reinforced the understanding that Article 29 protects not just religious and racial minorities but also linguistic ones, setting a precedent for affirmative measures in education.
State of Karnataka v. T.M.A. Pai Foundation (2002)
The T.M.A. Pai Foundation case is a constitutional landmark that clarified the extent of rights under Article 30(1), which guarantees linguistic and religious minorities the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice. The case arose when several minority-run educational institutions challenged excessive state regulation that they argued undermined their autonomy. The Supreme Court held that minorities, both linguistic and religious, have a fundamental right to set up and run educational institutions freely, though reasonable regulation is permissible to maintain academic standards. The judgment balanced minority rights with the need for state supervision, establishing principles that still guide education policy today.
Re Kerala Education Bill (1958)
In Re Kerala Education Bill, the Kerala government passed an education bill introducing strict regulations over private schools, many of which were run by linguistic and religious minorities. The President sought the Supreme Court’s advisory opinion under Article 143. The Court observed that while the state could regulate private educational institutions in the interest of maintaining standards and ensuring fair working conditions for teachers, it could not curtail the fundamental right of minorities to establish and administer such institutions under Article 30. The opinion underscored that state regulation must be reasonable and should not destroy the essence of the constitutional right. This landmark case laid the groundwork for balancing minority autonomy and state control.
State of Karnataka v. Associated Management of English Medium Primary & Secondary Schools (2020)
In this important case, the Karnataka High Court examined whether the state government could mandate Kannada as a compulsory medium of instruction in primary schools. Several English-medium schools challenged the government’s language policy, arguing that it violated their right to run educational institutions and parents’ right to choose the medium of instruction for their children. The Court ruled in favour of the schools, stating that imposing a single medium of instruction infringed Article 19(1)(g) — the freedom to practise any profession or carry on any occupation — and was unreasonable. The judgment reaffirmed that linguistic freedom and parental choice are integral to India’s pluralistic society.
Notable observations: Under Articles 14 and 21, the courts have repeatedly urged the Union and States to respect cultural identity, refrain from imposing their will on others, and preserve the essence of linguistic equality.
Together, these judgments highlight how the judiciary safeguards linguistic diversity, balancing minority rights with legitimate state interests — ensuring that India’s unity is built on respect for its vast linguistic and cultural pluralism.
Conclusion
India’s multilingual democracy requires careful balance. Although linguistic rights are protected by laws and court rulings, true harmony necessitates respect for one another among all citizens. Language should never be used as an excuse for violence or discrimination. Prejudice is reciprocal, as evidenced by recent controversies in Maharashtra and Karnataka as well as casual stereotypes from Hindi speakers.
Inclusive policies and civic education must be paired with legal protections. Only then will India’s motto – Unity in Diversity be true in every speech and on every street.
FAQs
Q1: What is stated regarding India’s official language in the Constitution?
A: Hindi is designated as the official language of the Union by Article 343, while English is designated as an associate official language. Under Article 345, states are free to designate their own official languages.
Q2: Is it possible for states to mandate their own language?
A state may designate a language as its official language, but it cannot impose restrictions on linguistic minorities’ ability to maintain and advance their language and culture (Articles 29–30). Excessive imposition is frequently overturned by courts.
Q3: How are linguistic minorities protected by the law?
A: Minorities are guaranteed the right to manage their own educational facilities and preserve their language under Articles 29 and 30. The Supreme Court has consistently maintained these rights while striking a balance between them and appropriate state regulation.
Attacks on linguistic communities and forced language imposition threaten India’s rich diversity by breeding fear, resentment, and division. Such intolerance undermines the constitutional promise of unity in diversity, discouraging mutual respect among regions. If unchecked, it may erode cultural harmony, weaken federal balance, and marginalise linguistic minorities, harming the pluralistic foundation that holds India together.
