Giving a language ‘national’ status is a policy decision that requires amendment to the Constitution, and not ordered by the court, the Supreme Court said on Friday while dismissing a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking Sanskrit to be declared as a national language.
“This lies in the realm of policy decision and even for the aforesaid, Constitution of India is to be amended. No writ can be issued to Parliament for declaring a language as a national language,” a bench of justices MR Shah and Krishna Murari said.
The apex court made the observations while hearing a PIL filed by DG Vanzara, a retired bureaucrat, and a lawyer.
“How many cities in India speak Sanskrit? This is a policy decision. We cannot issue a writ to the Centre to take a particular policy decision,” the bench remarked.
Also Read:India has shown how to manage diversity effectively: Bhagwat
Vanzara said he wants a discussion on this by the Centre and a nudge by the court can go a long way to promote that at the government level.
The bench, in a lighter vein, asked the petitioner, “Do you speak Sanskrit? Can you recite one line in Sanskrit or at least translate the prayer in your writ petition to Sanskrit.” Vanzara shared a Sanskrit shloka but the bench replied, “This we all know.”
{{/usCountry}}The bench, in a lighter vein, asked the petitioner, “Do you speak Sanskrit? Can you recite one line in Sanskrit or at least translate the prayer in your writ petition to Sanskrit.” Vanzara shared a Sanskrit shloka but the bench replied, “This we all know.”
{{/usCountry}}Vanzara then quoted a former judge of the erstwhile Supreme Court of Calcutta during the British Raj when Sir William Jones commented that out of the 22 languages he studied, Sanskrit was clearly the mother language. “We share that view. We know that several words in Hindi and other state languages have come from Sanskrit. But this cannot be the ground to declare the language as a national language. For us to declare a language is very difficult.”
The petitioner argued that under Article 32, the top court has got ample scope and a beginning could be made in this direction by seeking the Centre’s view on this issue. “This debate has to happen in Parliament,” the bench replied.
Dismissing the plea, the bench added that if the petitioner is so advised to move a representation, he may be at liberty to file such a representation before the government.