‘Your opinion isn’t last word’: Andhra govt faces SC’s ire for pitching English over Telugu

The state sought to justify its decision by claiming that children taught English in their early years fare better over their counterparts in vernacular medium schools.

Divergent views clashed in the Supreme Court on Tuesday in a case brought forward by the Andhra Pradesh government which defended its decision to make English as instruction medium for state schools at the foundational level.

File photo: Andhra Pradesh chief minister Y S Jagan Mohan Reddy. (ANI)

As the state sought to justify its decision - by claiming that children taught English in their early years fare better over their counterparts in vernacular medium schools - a three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) SA Bobde remarked, “There is a huge divergence of views in what you are saying… Your opinion is not the last word on this subject.” The bench decided to hear the matter next week along with a similar matter arising from Karnataka where schools have opposed the state government’s decision asking schools to compulsorily teach Kannada till Class 10.

In the case heard by the Court on Tuesday, Andhra Pradesh government was in appeal against an AP High Court decision of April 15 which struck down the order issued by the state government in November 2019 making English as the medium of instruction in government schools beginning 2020.

Senior advocate KV Vishwanathan, who appeared for the state, said, “We conducted a survey and 96 percent of parents have demanded English as the medium of instruction in state-run schools. Accordingly, we issued an order for Classes 1 to 6. It is not that we are denying Telugu. There will be a school in every mandal headquarter where Telugu will remain the medium of instruction and transportation will be provided free of cost. Due to the HC order, we are unable to proceed with our decision. It is affecting the lives of poor and marginalized children in the state.”

The bench, also comprising Justices AS Bopanna and V Ramasubramanian, said, “It is not a simple matter. There are a lot of divergent views between English and vernacular. There are countries where foundational education is taught in the vernacular language. You are arguing as if you hold the only valid view. Personally, we agree with you but we cannot impose our view. We want to take an overall view.”

Vishwanathan said that going to a vernacular medium school comes with a huge disadvantage. “I belong to a remote village near Coimbatore and I have seen my friends who studied in vernacular medium schools who have not been able to argue so well in the Supreme Court.”

The bench struck a discordant note. “Your example is wholly incorrect. After one passes out of school, one has to go through many learning years till he reaches the Supreme Court. He can pick up public speaking, communication, etc. For a foundation, it is very important for a child to learn the mother tongue.”

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta supported the bench saying, “I have gone to a vernacular school and so have many among us. Even judges of the Supreme Court have attended vernacular schools. The state (AP) is pitching it too high.”

The petition before the Andhra Pradesh High Court was moved by two individuals - Srinivas Guntapalli and Ramabhotla Srinivasa Sudhish. The HC struck down the government decision as being passed without application of mind. The HC in its order noted, “In overall development of the child, medium of instruction in which he was brought up and educated plays a vital role. The mother tongue plays a huge role in the development of personal, social and cultural identity; more so, the first language often enables a deeper understanding (about them) and their place within the society along with an increased sense of well-being and confidence.”

Senior counsel Gopal Sankaranarayanan, who appeared for the petitioners before the HC, had argued that the decision by the state robs parents of their choice to have Telugu medium of instruction for their children.

Section 29(2)(f) of Right to Education Act states that medium of instruction, “as far as practicable”, should be in English. But the state relied on the survey conducted among parents to justify being covered by this law. Vishwanathan even cited a 2014 Constitution Bench decision which regarded the right of parents to choose the medium of instruction.