17. Polity Notes 16

Elaborate Notes

Constitutional Morality

Constitutional Morality is a philosophy that requires citizens and the branches of government to be imbued with the core principles and values of the constitution. It is not merely about adhering to the text but about embracing the spirit of the constitution, which includes a commitment to liberty, equality, fraternity, and procedural propriety.

• Origin and Ambedkar’s View: The term was most prominently articulated by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar in the Constituent Assembly on November 4, 1948. While defending the detailed administrative provisions in the Draft Constitution, he quoted the Greek historian George Grote, who defined Constitutional Morality as a “paramount reverence for the forms of the constitution.” Ambedkar argued that “Constitutional morality is not a natural sentiment. It has to be cultivated. We must realize that our people have yet to learn it. Democracy in India is only a top-dressing on Indian soil which is essentially undemocratic.” He foresaw that the success of the Indian democracy would depend not just on the text of the Constitution but on the willingness of its people and institutions to follow its underlying principles.

• Judicial Interpretation and Application: The judiciary has resurrected this concept to interpret Fundamental Rights from a higher moral perspective, especially when they conflict with prevailing social morality or customs.

  • Primary vs. Secondary Laws: In its application, the Supreme Court has often distinguished between ‘primary’ universal values (like liberty, equality, dignity, non-discrimination—akin to natural law) and ‘secondary’ man-made laws (traditions, customs, religious practices, and even ordinary statutes). The doctrine of Constitutional Morality posits that when secondary laws clash with primary constitutional values, the latter must prevail.
  • Key Judgments:
    • Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018): In decriminalizing homosexuality under Section 377 of the IPC, the Supreme Court held that social morality cannot be used to violate the fundamental rights of a segment of the population. Chief Justice Dipak Misra stated, “Constitutional morality is not an emotional feeling. It is the permeating spirit of the Constitution which is above social morality.” The Court prioritized individual autonomy, dignity, and equality over majoritarian views.
    • Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala (2018) (Sabarimala Case): The Court, in a 4:1 majority verdict, allowed the entry of women of all age groups into the Sabarimala temple. It ruled that the practice of excluding women in their menstruating years was a form of untouchability and violated their right to equality (Article 14) and freedom of religion (Article 25). Justice D.Y. Chandrachud noted that “to treat women as children of a lesser god is to blink at the Constitution itself.”
    • Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2018): While striking down Section 497 of the IPC which criminalized adultery, the Court observed that the law treated a woman as the property of her husband and was an affront to her dignity and autonomy, thus violating constitutional morality.

• Definition and Scope:

  • Constitutional Morality means a steadfast adherence to the core principles of constitutional democracy, including rule of law, separation of powers, social justice, and individual liberty.
  • It is an interpretive tool for the judiciary to resolve ethical dilemmas, ensuring that the Constitution remains a living document that evolves with society while holding true to its foundational ideals.
  • The Supreme Court has described it as a commitment to an “inclusive and pluralistic society.” It requires that the “organs of the State must strive to work in a harmonised manner to preserve the unity and integrity of the nation.”

• Criticism and Challenges:

  • Vagueness and Subjectivity: Critics argue that “Constitutional Morality” is an undefined and amorphous term, making its application subjective and dependent on the personal philosophy of individual judges. This can lead to uncertainty in law.
  • Judicial Overreach: Its use can be seen as a tool for the judiciary to expand its powers, encroaching upon the domain of the legislature. Pratap Bhanu Mehta, a scholar, has argued that it can become a “cover for judicial usurpation of power.”
  • Anti-Democratic Potential: The idea that a few unelected judges can invalidate long-standing traditions and customs based on their interpretation of constitutional morality is seen by some as anti-democratic, as it overrides societal consensus and legislative will.
  • Conflict with Religious Freedom: In cases like Sabarimala, it raises complex questions about the judiciary’s role in interpreting ‘essential religious practices’ and balancing individual rights with the collective rights of religious denominations.

Article 29 & 30- Cultural and Educational Rights

These articles form a crucial part of the Fundamental Rights, aiming to protect the interests of minorities and preserve the cultural diversity of India.

Article 29: Protection of interests of minorities

Article 29 is structured in two clauses:

• Article 29(1): It guarantees that “any section of the citizens residing in the territory of India or any part thereof having a distinct language, script or culture of its own shall have the right to conserve the same.”

  • Scope: The Supreme Court, in cases like the Ahmedabad St. Xavier’s College Society v. State of Gujarat (1974), has held that the phrase “section of the citizens” is not confined to minorities only but includes any group with a distinct culture, which could even be a majority community. This right is therefore universal for all cultural groups.
  • Political Implications: In Abhiram Singh v. C.D. Commachen (2017), the Supreme Court clarified aspects of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. While an appeal to religion, race, caste, etc., for votes is a corrupt practice, the court has previously ruled that seeking votes on the promise of conserving a language does not amount to a corrupt practice, as it aligns with the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 29(1).

• Article 29(2): It states that “No citizen shall be denied admission into any educational institution maintained by the State or receiving aid out of State funds on grounds only of religion, race, caste, language or any of them.”

  • Nature of Right: This is an individual right, available to every citizen, irrespective of whether they belong to a majority or minority community. It prevents discrimination in state-funded or state-maintained educational institutions.
  • Historical Context - Champakam Dorairajan Case: In State of Madras v. Smt. Champakam Dorairajan (1951), the Madras government’s policy of reserving seats in medical and engineering colleges based on caste and religion (the Communal G.O.) was challenged. The Supreme Court struck it down, holding that it violated Article 29(2). This judgment directly led to the First Constitutional Amendment Act, 1951, which inserted Article 15(4), enabling the state to make special provisions for the advancement of socially and educationally backward classes.

Definition of Minority

The term ‘minority’ is not defined in the Constitution. The judiciary has provided clarity on this matter.

• Judicial Definition: A minority is a community which is numerically less than 50% of the population.
• Unit for Determination: In the landmark case of T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka (2002), an 11-judge bench of the Supreme Court held that the unit for determining religious or linguistic minority status would be the State, not the entire country.

Article 30: Right of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions

This article grants specific rights to religious and linguistic minorities.

• Article 30(1): “All minorities, whether based on religion or language, shall have the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice.”

  • The phrase “of their choice” confers a wide discretion, allowing minorities to establish not just institutions for imparting their own religion or language, but also secular educational institutions.

• Article 30(1A): Inserted by the 44th Amendment Act, 1978, this clause provides that if the property of a minority educational institution is compulsorily acquired, the compensation paid must be such that it does not restrict or abrogate the right guaranteed to them. This was to safeguard their rights after the Right to Property was removed as a Fundamental Right.

• Article 30(2): “The State shall not, in granting aid to educational institutions, discriminate against any educational institution on the ground that it is under the management of a minority, whether based on religion or language.”

• Scope and Limitations (Not Absolute):

  • The right is to “administer” but not to “mal-administer.” In the T.M.A. Pai case, the Court held that the state can impose reasonable regulations to maintain academic standards, ensure good administration, and prevent commercialization.
  • The state can prescribe qualifications for teaching staff, ensure proper infrastructure, and regulate fees to a reasonable extent (as clarified in P.A. Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra, 2005).
  • General laws of the land concerning public order, morality, health, sanitation, taxation, etc., are applicable to minority institutions.
  • Minority institutions are not obligated to implement the state’s reservation policy for SC/ST/OBCs in admissions or employment, as this would infringe upon their right under Article 30(1).

Article 32: Right to Constitutional Remedies

This article is the cornerstone of the Fundamental Rights, providing an enforcement mechanism.

• Ambedkar’s Vision: Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, during the Constituent Assembly debates on December 9, 1948, famously described it as the most important article: “If I was asked to name any particular article in this Constitution as the most important—an article without which this Constitution would be a nullity—I could not refer to any other article except this one. It is the very soul of the Constitution and the very heart of it.”

• Key Features:

  1. Guaranteed Right: It guarantees the right to move the Supreme Court for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights.
  2. Power to Issue Writs: It empowers the Supreme Court to issue directions, orders, or writs, including Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Prohibition, Certiorari, and Quo Warranto.
  3. Empowerment of Other Courts: Parliament can by law empower any other court to exercise all or any of the powers of the Supreme Court under Article 32(2), though this power has not been exercised yet. (Note: High Courts already have this power under Article 226).
  4. Suspension: The right to move the court can be suspended only during a Proclamation of National Emergency, as per Article 359.

• Basic Structure Doctrine: The Supreme Court in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) held that judicial review, and by extension Article 32, is a part of the ‘basic structure’ of the Constitution and cannot be taken away by amendment.

Types of Writs

A writ is a formal written order issued by a court. Under Articles 32 and 226, the Supreme Court and High Courts issue five types of writs.

• Habeas Corpus:

  • Meaning: A Latin term meaning “to have the body of.”
  • Purpose: It is an order issued by the court to a person who has detained another person, to produce the body of the latter before it. The court then examines the cause and legality of detention. If the detention is found to be illegal, it would set the detained person free.
  • Scope: It is a bulwark of individual liberty against arbitrary detention. It can be issued against both public authorities (the State) and private individuals.
  • Limitations: The writ cannot be issued where: (a) the detention is lawful, (b) the proceeding is for contempt of a legislature or a court, (c) detention is by a competent court, or (d) the detention is outside the jurisdiction of the court.
  • Historical Context: In ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla (1976), the SC took a restrictive view, holding that the right to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus could be suspended during an emergency. This judgment was heavily criticized and effectively overruled by the 44th Amendment Act, 1978.

• Mandamus:

  • Meaning: A Latin word meaning “we command.”
  • Purpose: It is a command issued by a court to a public official asking him to perform his official duties that he has failed or refused to perform.
  • Scope: It can be issued against any public body, a corporation, an inferior court, a tribunal, or the Government. It cannot be issued against a private individual or body, to enforce departmental instructions, or when the duty is discretionary and not mandatory. It also cannot be issued against the President or the State Governors.

---

Prelims Pointers

• Constitutional Morality was prominently used by the Supreme Court in the Sabarimala case and the Section 377 (decriminalization of homosexuality) case.
• Dr. B.R. Ambedkar was the first to use the term ‘Constitutional Morality’ in the Constituent Assembly debates.
• Article 29(1) grants the right to conserve a distinct language, script, or culture to “any section of the citizens.”
• The Supreme Court has clarified that “section of citizens” in Article 29 includes both majority and minority communities.
• Article 29(2) prohibits discrimination in admission to state-maintained or state-aided educational institutions on grounds only of religion, race, caste, or language.
• The term ‘Minority’ is not defined in the Indian Constitution.
• In the T.M.A. Pai Foundation case (2002), the SC held that the unit for determining minority status (religious or linguistic) is the State.
• The State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan (1951) case led to the First Constitutional Amendment Act, 1951, which added Article 15(4).
• Article 30 grants rights to religious and linguistic minorities to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice.
• The provision regarding compensation for compulsory acquisition of minority institution property was added to Article 30 by the 44th Amendment Act, 1978.
• Dr. B.R. Ambedkar called Article 32 the “heart and soul of the Constitution.”
• The right to move the Supreme Court under Article 32 is a Fundamental Right itself.
• Article 32 is a part of the ‘basic structure’ of the Constitution.
• The President can suspend the right to move any court for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights during a National Emergency under Article 359.
• Habeas Corpus is a Latin term meaning “to have the body of.” It can be issued against both public and private authorities.
• Mandamus is a Latin term meaning “we command.” It is issued to a public official to perform his/her official duties.

---

Mains Insights

• Constitutional Morality: Judicial Tool or Judicial Overreach?

  • Cause-Effect: The increasing invocation of Constitutional Morality by the judiciary can be seen as a response to the legislative and executive branches’ reluctance to address contentious social issues due to electoral compulsions. This forces the judiciary to step in to protect the rights of marginalized groups.
  • Debate: The central debate revolves around whether Constitutional Morality is a legitimate interpretive principle for advancing transformative constitutionalism or an “unruly horse” that allows judges to impose their subjective values, thereby violating the separation of powers. While it helps in upholding individual dignity against majoritarian norms, its lack of a concrete definition opens it up to criticism of being anti-democratic and promoting judicial supremacy.
  • Historiographical Viewpoint: From one perspective, the framers, especially Ambedkar, intended for a set of unwritten constitutional conventions (morality) to guide the functioning of the state. The judiciary is merely giving effect to this original intent. From another, critics argue that the framers intended for Parliament, the representative body of the people, to be the primary arbiter of social change, not the judiciary.

• Minority Rights (Art. 29 & 30): Balancing Protection with Integration

  • Dilemma: Articles 29 and 30 represent a classic constitutional dilemma: how to protect the unique identity of minorities without fostering a sense of separatism. The rights are intended to create a level playing field and preserve India’s pluralistic fabric.
  • Analysis: The right to “establish and administer” institutions has been interpreted to mean significant autonomy. However, this has led to debates over “reverse discrimination,” where minority institutions may have advantages (e.g., exemption from reservation policies) not available to majority institutions. The judiciary, through cases like T.M.A. Pai and P.A. Inamdar, has tried to strike a balance by allowing reasonable state regulation for academic excellence while preserving the core minority character.
  • Cause-Effect: The judicial interpretation that the ‘State’ is the unit for determining minority status has significant implications. It has led to demands for minority status by groups that are a majority at the national level but a minority in certain states (e.g., Hindus in Punjab or Jammu & Kashmir).

• Article 32: The Guardian of Fundamental Rights

  • Significance: Article 32 transforms Fundamental Rights from mere declarations into enforceable rights. Without it, these rights would be toothless. The evolution of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has further widened the scope of Article 32, diluting the traditional rule of locus standi and allowing any public-spirited citizen to approach the court on behalf of the oppressed or disadvantaged.
  • Comparison (Art. 32 vs. Art. 226): While the purpose of both is similar, the writ jurisdiction of High Courts under Article 226 is wider than that of the Supreme Court under Article 32. High Courts can issue writs not only for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights but also for “any other purpose,” i.e., enforcement of any legal right. However, approaching the SC under Article 32 is a Fundamental Right itself, whereas the right to approach the HC under Article 226 is a constitutional right.

---

Previous Year Questions

Prelims

1. Which one of the following statements is correct? (UPSC CSE 2017) (a) Rights are claims of the State against the citizens. (b) Rights are privileges which are incorporated in the Constitution of a State. (c) Rights are claims of the citizens against the State. (d) Rights are privileges of a few citizens against the many. Answer: (c) Rights are claims of the citizens against the State. This is the essence of Fundamental Rights, which are enforceable against the state.

2. A legislation which confers on the executive or administrative authority an unguided and uncontrolled discretionary power in the matter of application of law violates which one of the following Articles of the Constitution of India? (UPSC CSE 2021) (a) Article 14 (b) Article 28 (c) Article 32 (d) Article 44 Answer: (a) Article 14. The principle of ‘Rule of Law’ embedded in Article 14 (Equality before law) is violated by arbitrary action and unguided discretionary power.

3. In India, which one of the following constitutional amendments was widely believed to be enacted to overcome the judicial interpretations of the Fundamental Rights? (UPSC CSE 2023) (a) 1st Amendment (b) 42nd Amendment (c) 44th Amendment (d) 86th Amendment Answer: (a) 1st Amendment. The First Amendment Act, 1951 was enacted to overcome judicial pronouncements in cases like Champakam Dorairajan (related to reservations and Article 29) and Romesh Thappar (related to freedom of speech).

4. Consider the following statements:

   1. The Constitution of India defines the term ‘Minorities’.
   2. The right under Article 30 is available only to religious and linguistic minorities.
   3. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar described Article 32 as the ‘heart and soul’ of the Constitution. Which of the statements given above is/are correct? (a) 1 and 2 only (b) 2 and 3 only (c) 3 only (d) 1, 2 and 3 Answer: (b) 2 and 3 only. The Constitution does not define ‘Minorities’. Article 30 explicitly mentions “minorities, whether based on religion or language”. Dr. Ambedkar’s quote about Article 32 is a well-established fact.

5. With reference to the writ of ‘Habeas Corpus’, which of the following statements is/are correct?

   1. It can be issued against both public authorities and private individuals.
   2. It cannot be issued where the detention is by a competent court.
   3. It is considered a bulwark of individual liberty against arbitrary detention. Select the correct answer using the code given below. (a) 1 only (b) 1 and 3 only (c) 2 and 3 only (d) 1, 2 and 3 Answer: (d) 1, 2 and 3. All three statements are correct features of the writ of Habeas Corpus.

Mains

1. Constitutional Morality is rooted in the Constitution itself and is founded on its essential facets. Explain the doctrine of Constitutional Morality with the help of relevant judicial decisions. (UPSC CSE 2021 - modified from the summary) Answer: Introduction: Constitutional Morality is a philosophy that mandates adherence not just to the letter but to the spirit of the constitutional text. It is rooted in the core values of the Constitution such as justice, liberty, equality, and fraternity. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar described it as a sentiment that needs to be cultivated to sustain democracy in India.

   Body: The doctrine of Constitutional Morality requires:

   • Primacy of Constitutional Values: It places constitutional principles above popular or social morality.
   • Transformative Goal: It is used as an interpretive tool by the judiciary to uphold the transformative vision of the Constitution, by protecting individual rights against majoritarian norms.
   • Commitment to Pluralism: It upholds India’s pluralistic and inclusive character.

   Judicial Decisions:

   • Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018): The Supreme Court, while decriminalizing homosexuality, held that Constitutional Morality must trump any imposition of a majoritarian view. It protected the rights to dignity, privacy, and equality of the LGBTQ+ community.
   • Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala (2018): In the Sabarimala case, the Court ruled that the exclusion of women based on physiological reasons was a violation of their dignity and right to equality, overriding the custom on the grounds of constitutional morality.
   • Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2018): In striking down the law on adultery, the Court emphasized that a law that treats a woman as a chattel of her husband and perpetuates gender stereotypes is antithetical to constitutional morality.

   Conclusion: Constitutional Morality acts as a guiding star for the judiciary in ensuring that the Constitution remains a living document that protects the rights and dignity of every individual. While critics caution against its subjective application leading to judicial overreach, it has proven to be a vital doctrine for safeguarding the fundamental rights of marginalized citizens against societal prejudices.

2. What is the significance of Article 32 of the Indian Constitution? Do you think the recent trend of the Supreme Court to discourage petitions filed under Article 32 is a dilution of this fundamental right? Critically analyze. (Hypothetical, based on recent trends) Answer: Introduction: Article 32, described by Dr. Ambedkar as the “heart and soul of the Constitution,” guarantees the right to move the Supreme Court for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights. Its significance lies in making these rights justiciable and enforceable, thereby giving them substance.

   Body: Significance of Article 32:

   • Guaranteed Remedy: It is a fundamental right in itself, ensuring that a citizen has a guaranteed, speedy, and summary remedy from the highest court.
   • Guardian of Rights: It empowers the Supreme Court to act as the ultimate guarantor and protector of Fundamental Rights against legislative and executive excesses.
   • Tool for Social Justice: The evolution of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) under Article 32 has made justice accessible to the poor and marginalized, transforming the judicial process.

   Analysis of recent trends:

   • Discouragement of Petitions: In recent times, there have been instances where the Supreme Court has encouraged petitioners to approach the High Courts first under Article 226, citing the heavy caseload of the apex court.
   • Arguments for this trend: This approach is justified on grounds of judicial efficiency. High Courts under Article 226 have a wider jurisdiction and are more accessible geographically. It allows the Supreme Court to focus on cases involving substantial questions of law.
   • Arguments against this trend (Dilution): Critics argue that this trend amounts to a dilution of a fundamental right. Forcing citizens to take a longer, multi-tiered litigation route (HC then SLP to SC) undermines the ‘guaranteed’ and ‘speedy’ nature of the remedy envisioned by the framers. It weakens the SC’s role as the primary sentinel of fundamental rights.

   Conclusion: While the procedural suggestion to approach High Courts may be pragmatic for managing judicial workload, it must be exercised with caution. The Supreme Court must ensure that this practice does not evolve into a rigid rule that effectively closes its doors to citizens seeking to enforce their most basic rights, thereby preserving the spirit and significance of Article 32.

3. The rights of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions under Article 30 are not absolute. In light of various judicial pronouncements, discuss the extent to which the state can regulate these institutions. (Hypothetical) Answer: Introduction: Article 30 of the Constitution grants religious and linguistic minorities the fundamental right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice. This right is pivotal for preserving their culture and identity. However, the Supreme Court has consistently held that this right is not absolute and is subject to reasonable regulations.

   Body: The judiciary has balanced the autonomy of minority institutions with the state’s interest in maintaining educational standards through several landmark judgments:

   • Regulation vs. Control: In the T.M.A. Pai Foundation case (2002), the Court distinguished between permissible ‘regulation’ and impermissible ‘control’. The state can prescribe regulations to ensure academic excellence, but it cannot take over the administration in a way that destroys the institution’s minority character.
   • Permissible Areas of State Regulation:
     1. Academic Standards: The state can set minimum qualifications for teachers and principals and prescribe a curriculum for secular education.
     2. Conditions of Service: It can regulate service conditions of staff to ensure fairness and prevent exploitation.
     3. Fee Structure: While minority institutions can fix their own fees, the state can intervene to prevent profiteering and commercialization of education, as held in the P.A. Inamdar case (2005).
     4. Admissions: A certain percentage of admissions can be regulated by the state for non-minority students to promote national integration, provided it does not “swamp” the minority character. However, the state cannot impose its reservation policy.
   • Impermissible Regulations: The state cannot interfere in the day-to-day administration or dictate the composition of the governing body. The right to appoint staff is part of the right to administer, subject to them meeting prescribed qualifications.

   Conclusion: The judicial interpretation of Article 30 seeks to create a delicate equilibrium. It protects the core autonomy of minority institutions to preserve their identity while empowering the state to act as a regulator to ensure that these institutions contribute positively to the national goal of providing quality, non-exploitative education. The guiding principle is that the right is to “administer,” not to “mal-administer.”

4. Examine the scope of Fundamental Rights in the light of the latest judgement of the Supreme Court on the Right to Privacy. (UPSC CSE 2017) Answer: Introduction: The nine-judge bench verdict in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2017), which unanimously declared the Right to Privacy a fundamental right under Article 21, has profoundly expanded the scope and meaning of Fundamental Rights in India.

   Body: Scope Expansion of Fundamental Rights:

   • Intrinsic Part of Article 21: The judgement firmly established privacy as an intrinsic part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21. This means any state intrusion into privacy must pass the three-fold test: (i) legality (existence of a law), (ii) legitimate state aim, and (iii) proportionality.
   • Impact on Other Fundamental Rights: The right to privacy is not a standalone right but is intertwined with other rights.
     • Article 19 (Freedoms): Privacy of choice is integral to freedom of speech and expression (what to read or watch) and freedom of movement (where to go without surveillance).
     • Article 25 (Freedom of Religion): Privacy of belief is a core component of religious freedom.
   • Broader Interpretation of ‘Liberty’: The judgment affirmed a broad, liberal interpretation of ‘liberty’, encompassing personal autonomy, bodily integrity, and the right to make intimate personal choices.
   • Foundation for Subsequent Judgements: The Puttaswamy judgment has served as the bedrock for subsequent landmark verdicts that have expanded fundamental rights:
     • Navtej Singh Johar v. UoI (2018): Decriminalization of homosexuality was based on the right to privacy and autonomy of choice.
     • Joseph Shine v. UoI (2018): Decriminalizing adultery upheld a woman’s bodily integrity and sexual autonomy as facets of her privacy.

   Conclusion: The Right to Privacy judgment has infused new life into the Fundamental Rights chapter, transforming it into a more robust charter of individual liberties. It has shifted the constitutional balance in favour of the individual against the state and has laid a strong foundation for future jurisprudence on civil liberties in the digital age.

5. How have the recommendations of the 14th Finance Commission of India enabled the states to improve their fiscal position? (UPSC CSE 2021) (Note: This question is from GS-II but illustrates how constitutional body recommendations are framed as questions. A similar question on the National Commission for Minorities, related to the topic, could be asked.) For the purpose of this topic, let’s frame a relevant question: The Constitution of India protects the rights of linguistic minorities. However, they face several challenges in conserving their language and script. Discuss the constitutional provisions and suggest measures for their effective implementation. Answer: Introduction: India’s linguistic diversity is a national heritage. The Constitution provides specific safeguards for linguistic minorities to preserve their unique identity. However, challenges like the dominance of majority languages, lack of resources, and policy gaps hinder the effective conservation of minority languages.

   Body: Constitutional Provisions:

   1. Article 29(1): Guarantees the right of any section of citizens to conserve their “distinct language, script or culture.”
   2. Article 30(1): Allows linguistic minorities to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice.
   3. Article 350A: Directs every state to provide adequate facilities for instruction in the mother-tongue at the primary stage of education to children belonging to linguistic minority groups.
   4. Article 350B: Provides for a Special Officer for Linguistic Minorities (Commissioner for Linguistic Minorities) to be appointed by the President to investigate all matters relating to the safeguards provided for them.

   Challenges Faced by Linguistic Minorities:

   • Lack of teachers proficient in minority languages and a shortage of textbooks in their scripts.
   • Inadequate implementation of the three-language formula, often leading to the neglect of minority languages.
   • Pressure to adopt the dominant regional language for education and employment, leading to a gradual decline in the use of their mother tongue.
   • Insufficient state funding and support for institutions established under Article 30.

   Measures for Effective Implementation:

   • Strengthening the Commissioner for Linguistic Minorities: The office of the Commissioner needs to be empowered with more authority and resources to effectively monitor the implementation of safeguards.
   • Promoting Mother-Tongue Education: States must strictly implement Article 350A by developing quality curriculum and training teachers in minority languages.
   • Leveraging Technology: Digital resources, online dictionaries, and mobile applications can be developed to promote and teach minority languages.
   • Financial Support: Providing adequate and timely aid to educational institutions run by linguistic minorities under Article 30.

   Conclusion: While the constitutional framework for protecting linguistic minorities is robust, its success hinges on sincere and effective implementation by the Union and State governments. A proactive approach that values and promotes linguistic pluralism is essential to truly conserve India’s diverse cultural fabric.