SEKAR REPORTER

Court News from Madras High Court

Impleading Affidavit  I, Thol. Thirumavalavan. In education case

by ·

In the Hon’ble High Court of Madras at Chennai

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

(Under Art.226 of the Constitution of India)

 

 

  1. M. P. No. of 2022

in

  1. P. No. 818 of 2022

Thol. Thirumavalavan,

S/o Tholkappian,

President,                

Viduthalai Chiruththaigal Katchi,

Member of Parliament (Lok Sabha),

R-62, Second Avenue,

TNHB Colony, Velachery,

Impleading Petitioner Chennai 600042

 

Vs.

1.Thiru. Arjunan Elayaraja,

Secretary, Aalamaram NGO,

Thiagavalli and Post,  Cuddalore Taluk  

Cuddalore District.    

…Respondent-1

/Petitioner

  1. The Secretary,

Ministry of Education,

Government of India,       ….Respondent-2

New Delhi          /Respondent-1

  1. The Secretary,

Ministry of Human Resource Development, ….Respondent-3 Government of India,          /Respondent-2

New Delhi.

 

  1. Chief Secretary to Government,

State of Tamil Nadu ,     ….Respondent-4

Fort St. George,          /Respondent-3

Chennai 600009

 

5.Secretary to Government,

State of Tamil Nadu,

Department of Higher Education,       ….Respondent-5

Fort St. George,          /Respondent-4

Chennai 600009

  1. Secretary to Government,

State of Tamil Nadu,

Department of School Education,     

Fort St. George,        ….Respondent-6

Chennai 600009         /Respondent-5

 

 

 

 

           Impleading Affidavit 

 

 

I, Thol. Thirumavalavan S/o Tholkappian, aged about 58 years, President of the Viduthalai Chiruththaigal Katchi, and Member of Parliament, Lok Sabha, residing at R-62, Second Avenue, TNHB Colony, Velachery, Chennai 600042, do hereby file this impleading petition. I solemnly affirm and sincerely state as follows:

  1. I submit that I am well aware of the facts of the case and being a Member of Parliament I happen to have more facts pertaining to the issues raised by the Petitioner in the main Writ Petition, as those issues will adversely affect the Non-Hindi people of India in various ways, as has been experienced by them during the past seven decades. I, therefore, consider it essential to place those facts before the Hon’ble High Court in this case, especially in the context of the observations made by the Hon’ble Court and reported in newspapers on 26.01.2022, to enable the Hon’ble High Court to effectively and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions in the Petition. I also submit that I am entitled to implead myself to enable me to place the relevant facts with reference to those issues, going by the precedent set by this Hon’ble High Court in the W.A. 181, 182 and 183 of 2009. The manner in which Mr. Subramanian Swamy had been permitted to implead himself in this case even at the appellate stage in through his M.P. No. 2 of 2009 would fortify and establish my claim that I am entitled to implead myself in this case when the matter is only at the W.P. stage. I, therefore, pray that I may be permitted to implead myself.
  2. I submit that it had been reported in the Times of India on 26.01.2022 that the Hon’ble High Court had, while hearing the case of the Respondent-1 in this case, asked, “What harm will learning Hindi do?”. This pointed question necessitates me to place the relevant and specific facts about the manner in which Hindi had, already, done harm to Non-Hindi languages like Marathi, Gujarati, Punjabi and Odiya languages in the cine-field and, consequently, the literary fields of those languages. Children of these states who were forced to study Hindi right from their early elementary stages started using their knowledge of Hindi, when they turned ten years old, to see Hindi movies. As a result, commercially successful movies in these four languages had, even by the 1980s, become almost non-existent. While cinema is not an indicator of literary wealth of a language, it is a fact that it remains a great source of income for the writers and poets, who get impetus and enthusiasm to create more literary work in their languages. Besides, the cine-songs add to the literary wealth of a language to a limited extent. All this has been lost to Hindi by the people of Maharashtra, Gujarat, Odiya and Punjabi. The Art. 343 (1) benefitted the growth of only Hindi cine-field, Hindi writers and Hindi poets, as the writers and poets in these national languages have lost out to Hindi. The people of these languages have, due to external forces, been habituated to listen mainly to Hindi songs all day long, which trend borders on cultural genocide through “forced assimilations”.
  3. I submit that the experience of these States provides a clear warning to all the other Non-Hindi states about the deleterious impact of Hindi as Official Language in the life of the Non-Hindi people. They do have the inalienable right to demand equality in the linguistic arena, which was lost in 1949 because of the manipulative tendency of the Pro-Hindi bloc in the Constituent Assembly, as testified to by records. The Respondent-1 herein (the Petitioner in the main W.P) has filled up various pages of his Affidavit with falsities regarding the alleged need to teach Hindi in schools as part of curriculum. It is his imaginary arguments, especially those in Para 13, 14, 15, 18 and 19 of the Affidavit, which necessitate bringing the Relevant Facts to the kind notice of the Hon’ble High Court as given in the succeeding paragraphs.
  4. I submit that the fact is that the North-Indian leaders inside and outside the Constituent Assembly acted in an unfair manner and played foul, during the period from 1946 to 1949, to give Hindi that undeserved higher pedestal through Art. 343 (1). They were not prepared to see the international precedents when it came to the language issue. There were many polyglot nations like Belgium, Switzerland, Canada, Ireland, Latvia, Georgia, which faced social unrests and revolutions because of the higher status to given to one language at the cost of the other of the same nation. Copies of a few official government documents pertaining to the linguistic problems in Belgium and USSR, preceding the era of Constitution-making in India are submitted in the Typeset. But the North Indian representatives like R. V. Dhulekar and others in the Constituent Assembly were not ready to examine what happened in any polyglot nation pertaining to the language issue, because they did not care for the aspirations of the Non-Hindi people and were demonstrating arrogance in their debates, although they referred to the Constitutions of various nations for framing the other provisions of the Constitution.
  5. I submit that the debates in the law-making bodies are to be, necessarily, referred to in this case the way they had been traditionally referred to by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and other Courts to decide the Facts-in-issue by going behind and beyond the words in the Constitution or the Parliamentary legislations to ascertain the Relevant Facts. In the matter of reservation in services, Hon’ble Supreme Court had conceded that there was no Constitutional bar to provide reservation without any ceiling like 50%. And yet it went into the debates of the Constituent Assembly and decided to introduce the 50% limit, as could be seen from Para 677 of its Judgment in Indira Sawhney Vs Union of India, on 16.11.1992:

“True as observed by Krishna Iyer, J., in Soshit Karamchari (Supra) and Chinnappa Reddy, J., in Vasantha Kumar (supra) that there is no constitutional provision restricting reservation to 50% but with profound respect, the debates in the Constituent Assembly, the provisions in the Constitution do not support the construction of Article 16(4) as empowering government to reserve posts for backward class of citizens in proportion to their population.”

 

Hon’ble High Court of Madras has, in Novatris Vs Union of India, (06.08.2007), observed,

“Parliamentary intention may be gathered from several sources. First, of course, it must be gathered from the statute itself, next from the preamble to the statute, next from the Statement of Objects and Reasons, thereafter from parliamentary debates, reports of committees and commissions which preceded the legislation and finally from all legitimate and admissible sources from where there may be light. Regard must be had to legislative history too.’

Hon’ble Supreme Court has, in Girdhari Lal Vs. Balbir Nath Mathur (26.02.1986) observed,

“Our own court has generally taken the view that ascertainment of legislative intent is a basic rule of statutory construction and that a rule of construction should be preferred which advances the purpose and object of a legislation and that though a construction, according to plain language, should ordinarily be adopted, such a construction should not be adopted where it leads to anomalies, injustices or absurdities, vide K.P. Varghese v. ITO; State Bank of Travancore v. Mohd. M. Khan; Som Prakash Rekhi v. Union of India; Ravula Subba Rao v. CIT; Govindlal v. Agricultural Produce Market Committee and Babaji Kondaji v. Nasik Merchants Co-op. Bank Ltd.”

  1. I submit that the Constituent Assembly’s “Constitutional Advisor (B.
  2. Rau) brought together a great deal of data on foreign constitutions” ((Page 340 – Landmarks in Indian Legal and Constitutional History – V.D. Kulshreshta – EBC.). But there is no evidence that he placed before the Constituent Assembly the precedents in the international arena on the language issue. There is no evidence that the Constituent Assembly discussed in depth those precedents (although a few members had referred to some stray cases). If only the Constituent Assembly had gone through the language problem faced by Belgium in 1800s, or that of Canada in 1800s and 1900s, or that of Latvia in 1700s, 1800s and 1900s which had been assessed as ‘Linguogenocide’ by Prof. Andrejs Veisbergs, the Head of Contrastive Linguistics Department, University of Latvia, or the problems faced by the people of Catalonia or Switzerland, the members of the Constituent Assembly would not have ventured to formulate the Art. 343 (1) of the Constitution the way they had done. Elevation of Hindi as official language in this polyglot nation was to cause misery and sufferings to all the Non-Hindi people who constituted about 59% of the entire population of India, then. But pro-Hindi bloc did not care to examine the ill effects that such elevation would have on the Non-Hindi people. That attitude of the pro-Hindi bloc was not a sporadic one but was a routine affair in the Constituent Assembly, for more than two years, which made T. T. Krishnamachari, a prominent member in the Constituent Assembly, declare on 04.11.1948 on the floor of the Constituent Assembly itself as under:

“This kind of intolerance makes us fear that the strong Centre which we need, a strong Centre which is necessary will also mean the enslavement of people who do not speak the language of the Centre…..my honourable friends in U.P. do not help us in any way by flogging their idea (of) `Hindi Imperialism’ to the maximum extent possible. Sir, it is up to my friends in U.P. to have a whole-India; it is up to them to have a Hindi-India. The choice is theirs…”

 

  1. I submit that the manner in which Hindi was made Official Language has been recorded by The Hindu in its editorial thus: “We must repeat that Hindi was designated as the Official Language by the narrowest of margins – not in the Constituent Assembly but in the meeting of the Congress Members of the Assembly, who in reality had a dominant voice in its proceedings”. (A Hundred years of THE HINDU – Page 721).
  2. B. R. Ambedkar asked whether the South would tolerate the dominance of the North. He has gone on record saying, “Can the South tolerate the dominance of the North? It may not be a breach of a secret if I revealed to the public what happened in the Congress Party meeting when the Draft Constitution of India was being considered on the issue of adopting Hindi as the national language. There was no article which proved more controversial than Article 115 which deals with the question. No article produced more opposition. No article, more heat. After a prolonged discussion when the question was put, the vote was 77 against 77. The tie could not be resolved. After a long time when the question was put to the party meeting the result was 77 against 78 for Hindi. Hindi won its place as a national language by one vote. I am stating these facts from my personal knowledge. As Chairman of the Drafting Committee, I had naturally entry to the Congress Party enclosure” (Thoughts on Linguistic States- Chapter 5). These facts are relevant to the issues raised by the Petitioner in the main W.P. and are not mere history for academicians.
  3. I submit that even sadder was the way in which Art. 351 was inserted as part of the Constitution unnecessarily and in total contradiction to the text of the Art. 343 (1). Hindi which was, consciously and deliberately, prevented from being made as the national language or common language or ruling language or linguafranca through Art. 343 (1), had been made, on the sly, to become more than the link or common language, through Art. 351.
  4. The text of Art. 351 had been placed but was never discussed in the Constituent Assembly, at all. There was no discussion about Art. 351 even in the meeting of the Congress members of the Constituent Assembly. It was, got passed on the floor of the Constituent Assembly without any discussion at all about its need or its impact on society. The following discussion reproduced from the Minutes of the Constituent Assembly would show how easily and slyly Art. 351 has passed through the Constituent Assembly:

“Shri T. T. Krishnamachari: Amendment 491 may not be necessary because Kamath has moved amendments 394 and 395–practically the same amendment.

Mr. President: Very well. Then we come to article 351–amendment No. 492.

Dr. P. S. Deshmukh: What have you done with amendment 559 to article 320, Sir?

Mr. President: I have taken it as moved. You are referring to amendment No. 559. Do you want to speak, Dr. Deshmukh?

Dr. P. S. Deshmukh: Yes, Sir. I am sorry to say that this new amendment does not appear to be at all satisfactory. First of all, Sir, it is very circuitous in its drafting. It is like …”

No discussion at all, after the President said, “I have taken it as moved”. That was how Sanskrit, silently, infiltrated into the Constitution. A law, made in such dubious, improper and unlawful manner, is now attempted to be held against the people of the nation to impose Sanskrit on them, unnecessarily, through the National Education Policy-2020.

  1. It is recent history that the Arya Samaj and other outfits injected religion into the language issue and worked overtime to deny Punjabi language, its glorious status in its traditional homeland itself. They projected Hindi as the language of Hindus and aggressively campaigned for it denouncing, at the same time, Punjabi language in Gurmukhi script, while at the same time proclaiming that Sikhs were part of Hinduism as per the Hindu law. Art. 343 (1) gives supremacy to that kind of Hindi, which has, as per the foregoing incident, identified with Hindu religion. The purpose of Art. 351 was to convert that Hindi to be sanskritised one, soon, because Sanskrit and Hinduism are synonymous. Religion and language get, thus, intertwined when Sanskrit, which was never the language spoken by the people, is projected as an important language through Art. 351. Hindi was made official language de jure as per Art. 343 (1). But Sanskrit was intended to be made official language de facto through Art. 351. Thus, the calculation was that Art.351 would Sanskritise Hindi and protect Sanskrit.
  2. I submit that all the Non-Hindi people do have their inalienable right to love and promote our mother tongues and the duty to protect them from the ill effects of the misconceived Art. 343 (1) and Art.351 and, thereby, to promote the concepts of Liberty and Equality in all aspects of social and political life of the Indians which alone would pave way for the development of the sense of Fraternity that would assure Unity of our nation.
  3. I also submit that in the context of the Respondent-1 having cited a few decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, I submit that they are not relevant to the issues raised by him now in the W.P. 818 of 2022. Because, same Hon’ble Supreme Court has, in Divisional Controller, KSRTC Vs. Mahadeva Shetty, on

31.07.2003, observed as under:

“Therefore, while applying the decision to a later case, the Court dealing with it should carefully try to ascertain the principle laid down by the previous decision. A decision often takes its colour from the question involved in the case in which it is rendered. The scope and authority of a precedent should never be expanded unnecessarily beyond the needs of a given situation. The only thing binding as an authority upon a subsequent Judge is the principle upon which the case was decided. Statements which are not part of the ratio decidendi are distinguished as obiter dicta and are not authoritative. The task of finding the principle is fraught with difficulty as without an investigation into the facts, it cannot be assumed whether a similar direction must or ought to be made as measure of social justice. Precedents sub silentio and without argument are of no moment. Mere casual expression carry no weight at all. Nor every passing expression of a Judge, however eminent, can be treated as an ex cathedra statement having the weight of authority.”

  1. Referring to this as a “well-codified principle of law”, Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta had cited Salmond, in its decision in the case of Joydeb Pradhan, on 28.07.2005, as under:

“31. We have the authority of Salmond on Jurisprudence, Twelfth Edition: P. J. Fitzgerald on this proposition:

“A decision passes sub silentio, in the technical sense that has come to be attached to that phrase, when the particular point of law involved in the decision is not perceived by the Court or present to its mind. The Court may consciously decide in favour of one party because of point A, which it considers and pronounces upon. It may be shown, however, that logically the Court should not have decided in favour of the particular party unless it also decided point B in his favour; but point B was not argued or considered by the Court. In such circumstances, although point B was logically involved in the facts and although the case had a specific outcome, the decision is not an authority on point B. Point B is said to pass sub silentio”.

  1. In regard to the National Education Policy, 2020 (NEP), I submit the following few facts in, in addition to the facts already narrated supra:
  1. that policy attempts mainly at preventing even the Minimum General Education to the masses, in the guise of opting out for vocational education. There are important elements of Cultural Genocide in the NEP. Some of the techniques of Cultural Genocide are (i) “substituting vocational education in the liberal arts, in order to prevent humanistic thinking, which the occupant considers dangerous because it promotes national thinking; (ii) “forbidding use of a group’s language”; and (iii) “banning, discouraging liberal arts education in preference for trade schools”  (Page 18 – Cultural genocide and protection of cultural

heritage – by Edward C. Luck – Getty Publications – 2020). The NEP would enormously increase the number of dropouts at the early stage of education itself, without even the Minimum General Educational Qualification.

  1. The very fact that the then Chief of Defence Staff, General Bipin Rawat had praised the NEP stating that it would “help the armed forces identify youth for soldiering from rural areas” (Hindustan Times 02.08.2020), is an indicator of the purpose for which the NEP was formulated. Instead of enforcing Art. 23 of the Constitution of India and introduce Conscription of all the people to the army as a demonstration of real patriotism, as is being done in the civilised democracies, the NEP is used to deny higher education to the masses and drive them to seek entry into army as a source of employment. In regard to the tacit compulsion by the NEP to make the Non-Hindi people study Hindi, the editorial dated 01.08.1938 of the newspaper Madras Mail is worth quoting. It said, “…just as the compulsory learning of German made the Czechs conscious of their own language and culture and so anti-German, so the compulsory learning of Hindi is making Tamils in particular more conscious of their Tamil culture, and so, it is to be feared, hostile to North India” (Cited in the book “Tamils”

by Aiyar – Page 139).

  1. Already the students of the Non-Hindi belt have lost a lot in public employment under the Government of India, because of the deliberate pattern of avoiding in English question papers of the Union Public Service Commission, the well-known English names like Indian National Army and using Hindi or Sanskrit Proper Nouns like Azad Hind Fauz. Instances of this kind are numerous, affecting the lives and livelihoods of the Non-Hindi people of the nation and denying them the rights assured under Art. 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
  2. I submit that the concept of Traditional Homeland has been accepted in principle by the Government of India too, as has been by the Governments all over the world. The contents Para 4, and the arguments of the Counsel for the State of Tamil Nadu as recorded in Para 98 and the decision of the Tribunal as recorded in Para 121 of the Notification of the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, on

20.11.2014,  would show that t the stand of the Government of India

was that “The State of Tamil Nadu has traditionally been considered to be the homeland of Tamil” which would establish the fact that the Government of India had been aware and had taken cognizance of the fact that India consisted of the homelands of various linguistic groups. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar had, when Gujaratis claimed Mumbai for them, declared in unequivocal terms, “Bombay is a home only to the Maharashtrians and none else. It is not, therefore, logical or fair to count the non-Maharashtrians for the purpose of coming to the conclusion as to who form a majority of population in the Bombay city”. (Thoughts on Linguistic States- Chapter 7 –III). His argument was nothing but the reiteration of the Traditional Homeland concept in absolute terms. Yet the mother-tongues of the people belonging to all the Non-Hindi states are not allowed to grow to the natural extent, even withing their respective homelands, only because of the unjust Art. 343 (1) and improper Art. 351 of the Constitution.

  1. The assurance given to the linguistic minorities in Art. 29 (1) of the Constitution is not kept by the Government of India which spends unduly huge sum from the public exchequer to propagate, unfairly, such a Hindi and Sanskrit. The very fact that in spite of the assurance given under Art. 348 (2) of the Constitution, the North Indians obstruct Assamese, Bengali, Gujarathi, Kannada, Malayalam, Marathi, Odiya, Punjabi, Tamil, Telugu and Urdu becoming the languages of the High Courts in the respective homelands. But Hindi alone is promoted to be the language of the High Court. This is a clear case of unconstitutional discrimination against the people of India whose mother tongue is not Hindi. They believe that their Hindi cannot be promoted unless they suppress the native languages of the other people in India. Hindi is made to grown by trampling upon the rights of the other languages of the nation. The NEP does not provide any solution to this serious problem but only aggravates the issue with its pro-Hindi bias.
    1. I feel deeply perturbed about the manner in which the Petitioner has deliberately distorted the facts in his affidavit to make out a specious case against the well-conceived language policy of the Government of Tamil Nadu which had been recognised and honoured by the Union Government of India as could be seen from Rule 1 (ii) of the Official Languages (Use for Official Purposes of the Union) Rules, 1976 as amended up to 2011, which categorically declares that the said Rules “shall extend to the whole of India, except the State of Tamil Nadu”. It would clearly testify to the fact that the activities indulged in Tamil Nadu for enforcing Hindi as Official Language in Tamil Nadu, by the officials in the Department of Official Language of the Government of India are absolutely unlawful and mischievous.
    2. I submit that the original documents leading to that provision in the said Rules would explain how and why such a historically important decision had been taken then, even during the height of emergency by none other than the then Prime Minister herself. That enactment remains in force till date and Tamil Nadu remains protected from the onslaught of Hindi. But the Petitioner is totally ignorant of this fact or is misleading the Hon’ble High Court by suppressing this fact, as he is interested in projecting only his blighted and chauvinist views in his Affidavit before the Hon’ble High Court.
    3. It is submitted that the said promise of 1976 was a solemn promise which the Government of India, in keeping with morality in public life, is supposed to uphold and honour for all the time to come. But the officials in the Department of Official Language of the Union of India make every effort on the sly again and again to break that promise, apparently, in obedience to the immoral advice given by Chanakya to sue for peace and enter into agreements when weak and break that agreement on gaining strength. Chanakya had said, “Whoever is rising in power may break the agreement of peace” (Page 347 – Chapter XVII titled ”Making peace and Breaking it” – Book VII – Arthasastra – R. Shamasastry). That was a direction for immorality and dishonesty in public life. But it is that direction of Chanakya which is adopted by the officials of the aforesaid Department of Official Language under the Union of India, to sneak in Hindi into Tamil Nadu, reminiscent of the “The Camel and the Arab” fable, which causes social upheavals in the nation.
    4. I submit that the provisions of Art. 343 (1) and Art. 351 of the Constitution of India do not form part of the basic structure of the Constitution. The enactment pertaining to Hindi is only yet another amendable provision of the Constitution. And, such an amendment is very essential in the interest of the nation, as these two provisions were got inserted in the Constitution through improper and cunning methods, as could be seen from the records testifying to the events behind the making of the Constitution.
    5. I submit that the Petitioner who cites, in an irrelevant manner, in Para 28 of his Affidavit, the UN Covenant of Civil and Political Rights and the “Declarations as adopted by the United Nations”, suppresses the most relevant fact that the same United Nations celebrates has, in its proclamation of the International Mother Language Day in 1999, declared that one should “put an end to the dictates of one language over the other”:

“We hope that the spirit of the International Mother Language Day will help develop in us a deep respect for not only one’s own mother tongue, but for those of others as well; help the expression of all kinds of majority and minority languages and put an end to the dictates of one language over the other.”

  1. I, therefore, submit that the action of the Government of Tamil Nadu in having resisted the onslaught of Hindi is, thus, legitimate and legal. The Petitioner says, in the same Para 28, that “the International Covenants and Declarations as adopted by the United Nations have to be respected by all signatory states and the meaning given to the above words in those Declarations and Covenants have to be such as would help in effective implementation of those Rights”. While it is comforting to find the Petitioner talking of Rights vested in the people of India, through that International Body, the fact is that those Rights vested in the humanity are attempted to be divested by the protagonists of Hindi and the officials working under the direction and control of the Department of Official Language, Government of India. The Petitioner is not objective in his outlook and does not care for the Declaration of the UNO on the linguistic rights of the people all over the world. He attempts only at stifling and denying the rights of the Non-Hindi people, through his ill-conceived averments in his Affidavit.
  2. I submit that the basic and unalterable fact is that India was waging independence struggle against Britain for decades, without any kind of use or help of Hindi as the link language. India attained independence too, without Hindi. It became a single nation, a single political entity, in 1947, without Hindi as the official language. There really exited no need, at all, for India in the year 1949, to have Hindi as the Official Language, when it could and did achieve so much without Hindi. The protagonists of Hindi did not answer this specific question about the need for Hindi to reign the land at the time of framing of the Constitution in 1949. Because, they knew that there was no reason for it except the sentiments and subjective desires of the Hindi people. Hindi was and is not essential for India to remain a single cohesive political entity.
  3. I submit that the children who have been born to the Non-Hindi people of India are, now, forced to shoulder, unnecessarily, the extra burden of learning that language, which will adversely affect their educations for generations to come. The Hindu newspaper had, in its editorial dated 16.08.1937, reiterated the well-known universal truth in the following words: “By making Hindi compulsory, the students get overloaded, the standard of education gets reduced and the educational value becomes defective”. There is, therefore, no reason for Tamil Nadu to accept the NEP, which, in the guise of education, imposes Hindi on them and sabotages their growth in social, educational, economic and political fields.
  4. I submit that “A constitution that, for instance, allowed permanent majorities to oppress minority groups within society would give minorities no reason to go along with the provision of the constitution. Or a constitution that systematically privileged some members at the expense of others, or
that systematically entrenched the power of small groups in society,
would cease to command allegiance. If any group feels their identity is being stifled, they will have no reason to abide by the constitution. No constitution by itself achieves perfect justice. But it has to convince people that it provides the framework for pursuing basic justice.” (Textbook of NCERT – Political Science 2 for Class XI. Pages 12 & 13). It is only proper and just for the Petitioner in the main W.P. not to create further chaos by trying to enforce the National Education Policy, 2020 (NEP) and the Hindi and Sanskrit upon Tamils and Tamil Nadu.
  5. I submit that the lopsided arguments of the Petitioner in the Main

W.P. (the Respondent-1 herein) give rise to the following Questions of Law:

  1. Whether the officials of the Government of India ignore the provisions of Rule 1 (ii) of the Official Languages (Use for Official Purposes of the Union) Rules, 1976 as amended up to 2011, and enforce Hindi in Tamil Nadu the way they do in other States;
  2. Whether the Declaration of the UNO in the year 1999 on the International Mother Language Day which specifies that we should ‘put an end to the dictates of one language over the other’ is not relevant to India, seeing the extent to which Hindi has affected, already, the growth of Marathi, Gujarati, Punjabi and Odiya languages; and
  3. Whether the Rule of Sub Silentio applies or not, when the aforesaid Relevant Facts had not been considered in any of the earlier cases cited by the Respondent-1 herein;
  1. I submit that in view of the Relevant Facts and in view of the provisions in Rule 1(ii) of the Official Languages (Use for Official Purposes of the Union) Rules, 1976 as amended up to 2011 it is necessary to dismiss the main Writ Petition. I, therefore, submit that in the interest of justice I may please be permitted to implead myself as yet another Respondent in this Writ Petition No. 818 of 2022, to enable the Hon’ble High Court to effectively and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions in the Petition better and to further, thereby, the cause of justice. I shall submit my counter-affidavit with all the relevant facts and evidence, on being permitted to implead myself by the Hon’ble High Court.

Prayer:

  1. I, therefore, pray that, the Hon’ble High Court may be pleased to permit me to implead myself as another Respondent in the pending W.P. No. 818 of 2022 and thus render justice.

Dated this day, the 19th of March 2022 at Chennai.

   Before me
Solemnly affirmed and signed in my presence on this day, the 19th of March 2022 at Chennai.  

 

Advocate: Chennai

 

You may also like...