Indian Judgements

Indian Judgements

Local Language as a medium of instruction – Directions issued

Picture of Judgments Online

Judgments Online

The Supreme Court of India allowed the civil appeal filed by Padam and another, setting aside a judgment of the Rajasthan High Court that had dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL). The appellants sought a directive to include the Rajasthani language in the syllabus for the Rajasthan Eligibility Examination for Teachers (REET) 2021 and to mandate primary instruction for children in their mother tongue.

While the Court noted that the relief concerning the REET 2021 examination was technically infructuous as the recruitment process had already concluded, it heavily criticized the State of Rajasthan’s continued linguistic inertia. The Supreme Court ruled that the right to receive primary education in one’s mother tongue or regional language is a vital facet of individual autonomy and is judicially located within the right to receive comprehensible information under Article $19(1)(a)$ and the right to quality education under Article $21\text{A}$ of the Constitution. Consequently, the Court directed the State of Rajasthan to formulate a comprehensive policy to progressively adopt Rajasthani as a medium of instruction and introduce it as a school subject.

I. Factual Background

  • The Petition: The appellants filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) before the Jodhpur Bench of the Rajasthan High Court. They sought a writ of mandamus directing the State to include the Rajasthani language in the recruitment syllabus for Grade-III (Level-I and Level-II) teachers under the REET 2021 framework. Additionally, they prayed for directions ensuring children receive elementary education in their local mother tongue.
  • High Court Dismissal: On November 27, 2024, the Rajasthan High Court dismissed the PIL on the ground that a writ of mandamus requires the establishment of an existing, enforceable legal right and a corresponding failure of statutory duty by the State. The appellants challenged this final order before the Supreme Court under Article 136.

II. Submissions of the Parties

  • The Appellants: Contended that the Rajasthani-speaking population constitutes a “linguistic minority” relative to Hindi (the State’s official language) under Article 350A. They argued that receiving instruction in one’s mother tongue is an essential part of the freedom of speech and expression under Article $19(1)(a)$ and quality education under Article $21\text{A}$. They also pointed out hostile discrimination, noting that languages like Punjabi, Gujarati, and Sindhi were included in school curricula while Rajasthani was excluded.
  • The Respondents (State of Rajasthan): Argued that education and teacher recruitments are strictly limited to languages formally recognized in the Eighth Schedule to the Constitution. Since Rajasthani is not in the Eighth Schedule, no administrative framework or policy exists for its adoption. They further asserted that Article 350A is merely directory, and the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 is an executive statement lacking statutory force.

III. Key Issues Considered by the Supreme Court

  1. Whether the primary relief concerning REET 2021 survived or was rendered infructuous by the efflux of time.
  2. Whether the state’s failure to implement mother tongue-based elementary education violates the constitutional mandates of Articles $19(1)(a)$ and $21\text{A}$.
  3. Whether statutory recognition in the Eighth Schedule is a mandatory prerequisite for a language to be used as a medium of instruction or a school subject.

IV. Supreme Court’s Analysis and Legal Findings

A. Status of the Specific Examination Relief

The Court observed that because the REET 2021 recruitment process had already been fully conducted, concluded, and finalized, the primary relief seeking syllabus modification for that specific year was entirely infructuous. Unsettling it at this stage would disrupt settled public employment. However, the Court emphasized that the broader constitutional issue regarding linguistic inclusion survived.

B. Constitutional Matrix of Language and Quality Education

  • The Right to Be Understood: The Court underscored that comprehension must precede meaningful social participation. Under Article $21\text{A}$, the right to education explicitly means the right to quality Instruction delivered in a language alien or unfamiliar to a child inflicts an unnatural, torturous strain and reduces education to a hollow formality.
  • The Article $19(1)(a)$ Nexus: Relying on State of Karnataka v. Associated Management of English Medium Primary & Secondary Schools, the Court reaffirmed that the freedom of speech and expression includes both the right to impart and the right to receive This encompasses a child’s freedom to be educated at the primary stage in a comprehensible language of choice.
  • Statutory and Policy Frameworks: The Court highlighted Section $29(2)(f)$ of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (RTE) Act, 2009, which explicitly mandates that the medium of instruction shall, as far as practicable, be in the child’s mother tongue. This mandate is strongly reinforced by the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020.

C. Rejection of the State’s Technical Defense

The Court strongly condemned the State’s lackadaisical, “myopic” response that it cannot act because Rajasthani is absent from the Eighth Schedule. The Court exposed an internal contradiction in the State’s setup: Rajasthani is actively taught as an academic subject at higher educational levels in prominent state institutions (such as Jai Narain Vyas University and the University of Rajasthan), proving it possesses institutional and pedagogical acceptance. Using the absence of an elementary policy not as a problem to fix, but as a shield to defend executive inertia, was deemed completely unacceptable.

V. Final Decision and Directives

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Rajasthan High Court’s order, and issued the following structural directives to the State of Rajasthan on May 12, 2026:

  • Policy Formulation: The State must formulate a comprehensive policy to effectively implement mother tongue-based education, giving due status to the Rajasthani language as a local/regional language.
  • Medium of Instruction: The State must progressively facilitate the adoption of Rajasthani as a medium of instruction, starting at the foundational and preparatory stages of schooling.
  • Curriculum Inclusion: The State must take time-bound, affirmative, and phased steps to introduce and provide Rajasthani as an optional or additional subject in all public and private schools.
  • Compliance Timeline: The State of Rajasthan is ordered to file a formal compliance affidavit detailing its structural progress by September 25, 2026. The matter is listed for review on September 30, 2026.

2026 INSC 476

Padam Mehta And Another V. State of Rajasthan And Others (D.O.J. 12.05.2026)

2026 INSC 476 clcick here to view full text of judgment

Share
Next Story

Admissibility of Deceased Witness Testimony Against Absconding Accused

July 18, 2026 No Comments

Supreme Court allowed the appeals filed by the State of West Bengal, ruling that the deposition of a deceased witness recorded in an earlier trial is admissible in a subsequent trial against an absconding accused, provided the requirements of Section 299 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) are met. The Court clarified that the provision serves to preserve evidence when an accused deliberately absconds, preventing them from benefiting from the unavailability of material witnesses due to the passage of time. The Court set aside the High Court’s order, which had denied the admission of the victim’s testimony, confirming that the statutory preconditions—the accused absconding and no immediate prospect of arrest—were satisfied at the time the witness deposed.

  • Background: In a 2012 gang-rape case, the respondent and another accused were absconding while three others were tried and convicted. The victim, a key witness, testified in the first trial but passed away in 2015. After the respondent was arrested in 2016, the prosecution sought to admit the victim’s earlier deposition as evidence under Section 33 of the Indian Evidence Act read with Section 299 of the CrPC.
  • High Court Order: The High Court of Calcutta had rejected the application, observing that the prosecution had a duty to obtain a specific direction from the Trial Court to record evidence against the absconder during the first trial, and thus the earlier deposition could not be used against the respondent.
  • Interpretation of Section 299 CrPC: The Supreme Court held that Section 299 CrPC acts as an exception to the general rule requiring a witness to be examined in the presence of the accused. It does not mandate a formal, prior order from a Magistrate to record that the accused is absconding; rather, what is relevant is whether the conditions—that the accused is absconding and there is no immediate prospect of arrest—were established at the time the evidence was recorded.
  • Preventing Misuse of Process: The Court reasoned that taking a restrictive view of Section 299 would jeopardize the criminal justice system by incentivizing accused persons to wilfully abscond and await the death or unavailability of material witnesses.
  • Application to Facts: The Court noted that the respondent was a declared absconder when the victim’s testimony was recorded (2013), and he remained at large until his arrest in 2016. As the two essential conditions of Section 299(1) were met, the deceased victim’s evidence is admissible in the trial against the respondent.

Legislative Continuity: The Court noted that the legislature has maintained this principle in Section 335 of the recently enacted Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, reinforcing the intent to ensure evidence is preserved against those who evade trial.

2026 INSC 718

The State of West Bengal v. Kader Khan – (D.O.J. 17.07.2026)

2026 INSC 718 click here to view full text of judgment

Next Story

Insolvency and Bankruptcy: Finality of Resolution Plans and Extinguishment of Sub-judice Claims

July 18, 2026 No Comments

Supreme Court allowed the appeals filed by the Successful Resolution Applicant (Appellant-SRA), ruling that upon the approval of a Resolution Plan under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), all claims—including those pending adjudication (sub-judice)—that are not specifically provided for in the plan stand extinguished. The Court held that the “clean slate” doctrine is fundamental to the IBC, preventing unresolved or contingent claims from resurfacing and undermining the revival of the corporate debtor. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court orders and dismissed the civil suit and arbitration proceedings initiated by operational creditors, affirming that they are bound by the terms of the approved Resolution Plan.

  • Background: The Appellant-SRA challenged Bombay High Court orders that allowed a civil recovery suit and arbitration proceedings to continue against the corporate debtor (Bhushan Steel Limited) despite the approval of its Resolution Plan. The respondents, operational creditors, sought to pursue claims that were pending at the time of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP).
  • Treatment of Claims: During the CIRP, the Resolution Professional admitted the respondents’ disputed claims at a notional value of Rupee One (1) each. The approved Resolution Plan stipulated that because the liquidation value was NIL, no amounts were due to operational creditors; however, a settlement fund was provided for those with admitted claims.
  • The “Clean Slate” Doctrine: The Court emphasized that a successful resolution applicant must start on a “clean slate,” free from “hydra-headed” surprise claims. Once a Resolution Plan is approved under Section 31(1) of the IBC, it becomes binding on all stakeholders, and claims not incorporated therein are deemed extinguished, withdrawn, or abated.
  • Finality of the Plan: The Court noted that the Final List of Creditors attained finality, and the respondents could not seek to reopen or question the commercial wisdom of the Committee of Creditors after the plan’s approval. The Court found no merit in the allegations of fraud, noting that no proceedings had been initiated under Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules to challenge the plan’s integrity.
  • No Express Carve-out: Upon a harmonious reading of the Resolution Plan, the Court concluded there was no express “carve-out” protecting sub-judice claims from extinguishment. The plan explicitly mandated that all legal proceedings relating to the period prior to the effective date stand extinguished, except to the extent of the specific settlement amount provided.
  • Observation on MSMEs: In an “Afterword,” the Court observed that the current insolvency framework does not adequately account for the position of small operational creditors and MSMEs, who are often placed at the bottom of the repayment waterfall. The Court suggested that the Legislature and Law Commission examine this to ensure a more balanced repayment mechanism.
  • Outcome: The Court allowed the appeals, set aside the contrary High Court orders, and dismissed the pending civil suit and arbitration proceedings, enforcing the finality of the Resolution Plan.

2026 INSC 717

M/S Tata Steel Ltd. v. Varsha & Anr. (D.O.J. 17.07.2026)

2026 INSC 717 click here to view full text of judgment

Share
Next Story

Excluding Nominated Members from Local Authority Elections

July 18, 2026 No Comments

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court of Karnataka’s decision to exclude nominated members of Town Panchayats from participating in Legislative Council elections for Local Authorities’ Constituencies. The Court ruled that under the constitutional framework established by the 74th Amendment (Part IX-A), nominated members, who serve only in an advisory capacity, lack the democratic mandate of elected representatives. Consequently, their inclusion in the electoral roll was declared unconstitutional, and the Court affirmed the direction to conduct a recount of votes after segregating the invalid votes cast by these nominated members.

  • Background: The election to the Karnataka Legislative Council (Chikkamagaluru Local Authorities Constituency) was challenged because 12 nominated members from four Town Panchayats were included in the electoral roll and participated in the voting. The appellant, who won by a narrow margin of 6 votes, contended that the electoral roll’s finality should be respected.
  • Constitutional Interpretation: The Court held that while Article 171(3)(a) mentions “members” of local authorities, this must be interpreted through the lens of the 74th Constitutional Amendment. Article 243-R establishes that while nominated members may be appointed for their expertise, they are expressly barred from voting in municipal meetings, underscoring their advisory rather than representative role.
  • Democratic Representation: The Supreme Court emphasized that allowing nominated members to vote in Legislative Council elections would undermine the democratic nature of the electoral process, as they are not democratically elected. The Court affirmed that “members” in the context of electoral colleges refers to democratically elected representatives.
  • Finality of Electoral Rolls: While acknowledging the principle that electoral rolls typically attain finality, the Court distinguished this case by noting that the inclusion of the nominated members was void ab initio and unconstitutional. Therefore, the finality of the roll could not be used to validate an illegality that strikes at the core of the electoral college’s composition.
  • Secrecy of the Ballot: The Court rejected the argument that segregating these votes would violate the secrecy of the ballot. It maintained that the higher constitutional goal of preserving free and fair elections and ensuring the purity of the electoral process outweighs the requirement for absolute secrecy in this specific context.
  • Outcome: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and affirmed the High Court’s orders. The Court directed the authorities to proceed with the consequential actions based on the recount results already obtained, ensuring that the election outcome reflects only the valid votes cast by elected representatives.

2026 INSC 716

Pranesh M.K. v. Shanthegowda & Ors. – (D.O.J. 16.07.2026)

2026 INSC 716 click here to view full text of judgment

Share
Next Story

Railway: Establishing Liability in Untoward Railway Incidents

July 18, 2026 No Comments

The Supreme Court set aside the concurrent dismissal of a compensation claim by the Railway Claims Tribunal and the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. The Court held that when a passenger dies in an “untoward incident” (falling from a running train), the absence of a recovered ticket does not automatically negate the status of a bona fide passenger. Emphasizing the “no-fault liability” principle under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989, the Court ruled that once the claimant establishes the foundational facts through an affidavit, the burden shifts to the Railways. Technical lapses and the inability to recover personal belongings should not defeat the humanitarian and welfare objectives of the legislation.

  • Background: The appellant filed a claim for compensation following the death of her husband, who fell from a running train while traveling from Raipur to Ahmedabad. The Railway Claims Tribunal and the High Court previously rejected the claim, citing a lack of proof regarding the deceased being a bona fide passenger (specifically due to the missing ticket).
  • Legal Principle (No-Fault Liability): The Court reiterated that Section 124A of the 1989 Act is a beneficial, “no-fault” provision. It is designed to provide expeditious relief to victims of untoward incidents without requiring proof of negligence by the Railway Administration.
  • Burden of Proof: Relying on Union of India v. Rina Devi and Doli Rani Saha v. Union of India, the Court clarified that:
    • The mere absence of a ticket does not disprove that a person was a bona fide
    • The initial burden is on the claimant, which is sufficiently discharged by filing an affidavit stating the facts.
    • Once this is done, the burden shifts to the Railways to disprove the claim based on attending circumstances.
  • Operational Concerns: The Court highlighted the critical issue of chronic overcrowding in Indian Railways. It noted that while the Railway Manuals contain detailed safety and ticketing protocols, the execution often fails. The Court suggested that Railways should increase manpower to better manage safety and ticketing, which could simultaneously reduce such tragedies and provide employment.
  • Constitutional Perspective: The Court observed that using terms like “second class passenger” is outdated and potentially offensive to the spirit of the Constitution of India; it suggested that class designations should refer to the “coach” rather than the “passenger.”

Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the lower court judgments. It ordered the Railways to pay compensation of ₹8,00,000 to the appellant within four weeks, failing which the amount would attract interest at 8% from the date of the original claim filing.

2026 INSC 715

Lata v. Union of India & Anr. – (D.O.J. 17.07.2026)

2026 INSC 715 click here to view full text of judgment

Share

The specified slider does not exist.

Recent Articles

Hi Judgments Online

Subscribed
Logins