Linguistic Minorities in India :

Problems and Safeguards

Alice Jacob';'

THE GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION of the Indian sub-conti-

nent and the various historical forces have brought into the land
people with different ethnic origins and varying culture based on
religion, language and philosophy of life. Linguistic diversity is one
of the marked features of the Indian society. There are well re-
cognised regions within the Indian polity having distinct lan-
guages of their own. During the British rule, the territorial units
were organised on considerations of administrative efficiency and
as such they Were multi-lingual in character. These multi-lingual
states assumed the existence of linguistic minorities within their
boundaries. The Constitution of India has made certain provisions
to safeguard their rights. Then came the reorganization of the
states in 1956 which resulted in the formation of unilingual states.
As a consequence, the number of linguistic minorities was reduced.
However, it was apparent that even with the application of the
formula "one language one state" rigidly, the problem of linguistic
minorities could not br- solved completely. The limitations on the
process of unification of territories on the basis of language are
that: (i) physically it is difficult to group all the language groups
into separate states, (ii) there exist a large number of bilingual
pockets between different linguistic areas, and (iii) there exist
areas WIth a mixed population even within a unilingual state.
Further, the Constitution guarantees freedom of movement to all
citizens of India. With free mobility, the linguistic composition of
the states is likely to undergo change from time to time. How-
ever, there will always be the presence of a linguistic minority
within the borders of different states in this multi-lingual country.

What is a Linguistic Minority for Purposes of Constitutional

Guarantees'!

The Constitution recognises minorities based on religion, cul-

ture, language, or script. Article 29 guarantees to minorities having

,. LL.M., J.S.D. (Yak), Research Prof'e ;~')!'. The l ndiuu Luw Insti-
tute, New Delhi.
370 Minorities and the Law

distinct language, script or culture the right to conserve it, and

article 30 confers on the minorities based on religion or language
the right to establish and administer educational institutions of
their choice. However, the Constitution neither defines the term
'minority' nor delineates the criteria for determining a minority.
However, the Supreme Court has laid down certain guidelines in
this regard. In In re The Kerala Education Bill, 1957,1 which
involved religious minorities, the question was posed as t.o what
constitutes a minority. In the opinion of the Court while minority
could be easily defined as a group which was numerically less
than 50 per cent, the important question was 50 per cent of what?
Should it be of the entire population of India Or of a state or a
part thereof? It may be that a community may be concentrated
in a part of a state and thus form a majority in that region, though
in the context of the whole of the state population, it may be
in a minority. If a part of a state is taken, what is the unit to
be taken into consideration-a district, a taluk, town or a muni-
cipality or its wards? Though the Court did not express a final
opinion on this question, it did decide that when an Act of a State
legislature is applicable to the whole of the state. the minority
must be determined by reference to the entire state and any
group, linguistic or religious which is numerically less than 50
per cent of the entire state population may be considered as a
minority for purposes of constitutional guarantees in relation to
that statute. This test has been approved and reiterated by the
Court in D.A.V. College, Jullundur v. State of Punjab. 2 The ques-
tion in this case was whether the Arya Samajis, founders of the
D.A.V. College Trust who managed and administered the petitioner
colleges formed a religious as well as linguistic minority in the
State of Punjab. The petitioner contended inter alia, that the statu-
tes framed under the Guru Nanak University, Amritsar, Act, 1969,
had violated their fundamental right under article 30(1) in that
they interfered with the management of minority educational
institutions. The Court, in determining what constitutes a mino-
rity, approved the test enunciated earlier in In re The Kerala
Education Bill case and reaffirmed that minorities "are to be de-
termined in relation to the particular legislation which is sought
to be impugned, namely, that if it is the State Legislature these
minorities have to be determined in relation to the population of

1. AJ.R. 1953 S.C. 95li.

2. ( 1\l71) 2 S.C.C. 21m.
 Linguistic Minorities in India 371

the state. "3 Adopting this test, the Court found that Arya Samaj-
is a sect of Hindus, are a religious minority in the State of Pun-
jab and entitled to the constitutional guarantee under article 30.
Having thus held, the Court thought it unnecessary to consider
whether Arya Samajis are a linguistic minority. Nevertheless, the
Court laid down certain princi ples to determine linguistic mino-
rities. "A linguistic minority," observed the Court, "is one which
must at least have a separate spoken language. It is not necessary
that that language should also have a distinct script for those who
speak it to be a linguistic minority. There are in this country
some languages which have no script of their own but nonetheless
those sections of the people who speak that language will be a
linguistic minority. , , "ol Thus a linguistic minority is a group of
people having mother-tongue different from that of the majority
in a state. or part thereof. These observations are of decisive
significance for the formulation and implementation of safeguards
for all linguistic minorities in general and for those linguistic
groups which have no distinct script of their own in particular.

Problems

This paper attempts to identify some of the important prob-

lems of the linguistic minorities and to discuss the constitutional
and other legal and administrative measures aimed at their
solution.
The crucial problem areas vis-a-vis linguistic minorities are
(i) the right to instruction in their mother-tongue, (ii) the Use
of minority languages for official purposes, and (iii) the recruit-
ment of minorities to state services.

1. RIGHT TO INSTHUCTION IN MOTHER-TONGUE

I. At the Primary Stage -

The language of instruction in educational institutions at the

primary and secondary level is a math>r that vitally affects each
individual whether belonging to a dominant language group or
linguistic minority group. In this respect. the Constitution has
recognised in article 2fl(1) the right of a linguistic minority to

:1. let. at 2j·t,

-I. tu. ;: t 2.,>.
372 Minorities aud the Laui

conserve their language and culture. It also prohibits discrimina-

tion on grounds only of religion, race, caste, language or any of
them in the matter of admission to educational institutions main-
tained Or aided by the state. This provision does not cast any
positive obligation on the state to promote steps to conserve the
language and culture of linguistic minority groups. But it pre-
vents the state from imposing on a linguistic minority any other
language.
As regards educational rights, the Constitution has guaran-
teed to the minorities the right to establish their own schools
but had not before the Constitution (Seventh Amendment) Act,
1H56, specifically recognised the right to instruction in the mother-
tongue in the schools maintained by the state. This was a lacuna
in the constitutional provision. The minorities especially in rural
areas may not have the nccessarv wherewithal to set up and
maintain their own educational institutions. Consequently positive
duty should be imposed on the state to provide facilities to the
minorities for education in their mother-tongue at the primary
school stage in schools maintained by the state, But awareness or
this problem was present at the state government and central
government levels as early as H)-ln. In fact the Provincial Educa-
tion Ministers' Conference of 19-1fl passed a resolution recom-
mending the introduction of mother-tongue as the medium of
instruction at the primary stage of education for linguistic mino-
rities by appointing one teacher, provided there were not less
than 40 students speaking the language in the whole school Or 10
such pupils in ~\ class The recommendation was accepted by th-
Central Government. However, as the resolution was merely re-
commendatory the states failed to adopt a uniform policy in
this respect. Nonetheless, the constitution-makers did not
think it necessary to incorporate this safeguard in the Constitu-
tion as originally framed. The States Reorganisation Commis-
sion while examining the question of safeguards for linguistic
minorities, felt the necessity of giving constitutional recognition
to this right and recommended accordingly.s As a sequel to the
Commission's recommendation, the Constitution was amended
incorporating articles 350-A and 350-B.6 Article 350-A directed
L very state and local authority within the state to provide ade-

quate facilities for instruction in the mother-tongue at the primary

:i. Report oj tire Stales Reorganisatiun Cummissiull 209-210 (l!15fJ)

(hereinafter cited as SRC Re port).
t). S. ::!! of the Const it ut lon (Seventh Amendment) Act, 1956.
 Linguistic Minorities in India 37.1

stage of education to the children of linguistic minority groups.

It also empowered the President to issue such directions to any
state as he considers necessary or proper by him for securing
the provision of these facilities. Article 350-B created an agency
for supervising the safeguards for linguistic minorities. In this
connection the States Reorganisation Commission had recom-
mended that the services of the State Governors should he uti-
lised for enforcing the safeguards. But this idea was not approv-
ed by the Parliament. So the Union Government proposed the
appointment of a Commissioner for linguistic minorities at the
Centre on the pattern of the office of the Commissioner for Sche-
duled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. It was this proposal which
was embodied in article 350-B. To investigate all matters relat-
mg to the safeguards provided for the linguistic minorities under
the Constitution, and to report on these matters to the Presi-
dent at such intervals as he may direct, article 350-B provides
lor the appointment by the President of a Special Officer, now
designated as Commissioner for Lingutstic Minorities. The Commis-
sioner at present submits his reports annually which are laid
before each House of Parliament. The report is sent to the state
governments also. Another machinery for suggesting recom-
mendations to protect the interests of linguistic minorities is the
Zonal Councils set up under the States Reorganisation Act. 1956.7
The main purpose is to enable the states in a Zone to evolve a
common policy regarding these minorities. As we shall see later
the Southern Zonal Council consisting of the States of Mysore.
Andhra Pradesh, Kerala and Tamil Nadu has clone commend-
able work in suggesting solutions with regard to the problems
of linguistic minorities."
Reverting back to the problem of right to instruction in the

I. Parl III,3cl:tiol1:i 1-1 to 22 of ~hl' Stale.; Rcorgunlzutlon Ad,

1956, Section 21 reads thus:
(I) Each Zonal Council shall be ,1Il adv.sory body and may discuss
any matter ill which some or all or the- states represented in
that Council, or the Union and one or more of the states re-
presented in that Council. have a common Interest and advise
tht: Centrat Government and the government of each state
concerned as to the actions to be taken on any such matter.
(2) In particular and without LJrejlltlll"(~ to the generality of the
provisions of sub-section (1) A ZJnal Council may discuss, and
make roccmmendauons with regard to, - (b) any matter con-
cerning. . .. lingu:st.:c minorities.
R. See Morris Jones, '['T,e G01'pl'nmt'll! and PolitiC's oJ India 1H.
(HUH).
374 Minorities and the Law

mother-tongue for linguistic minorities, the Constitution, as

stated above, has recognised it only at the primary stage. The
guarantee becomes meaningful for the linguistic minority only
by effective implementation. Let us examine the extent to which
this guarantee has been implemented by the states. The process
of enlarging the scope of implementation has been considerably
helped by the recommendations of the Commissioner for
Linguistic Minorities, the Southern Zonal Council and the Chief
Ministers' Conferences.

(a) Provision of Facilities under A?,ticle 350-.11

Most of the States have adopted measures for facilities for
implementing the guarantee.t The basic policy is that the me-
dium of instruction and examination at the junior basic stage
must be the mother-tongue of the child and in cases where
the mother-tongue is different from the regional language or
state language, arrangements must be made for instruction in
the mother-tongue by appointing at least one teacher provided
there are not less than 40 pupils, speaking the language in the
whole school or 10 such pupils in a class.l?

(b) Advance Registration of Linguistic Minority Pupils

The procedure of advance registration of linguistic minority
pupils was suggested by the Southern Zonal Council!! and the

9. In Madhya Pradesh the racJlity ~-.; .limlted to the fifteen languages

stated in the Eighth Schedule tu the Constitution. In Haryana,
formal orders exist tor Impart.ng instruction in Puriiabi. In Jammu
and Kashmir, facilities are available only in Urdu in Persian and
Devanagarl scripts. In Punjab, the facility is available only in Hind:
and Punjabi. See The Report of tile Commissioner for Lingu7::tir
Minorities in Inda, Appendix V, 117 (1969) (hereinafter cited as
Linguistic Minorities Report.)
10. This suggestion of the Provincial Education Minister's Conference of
19019 was accepted lby the Government of India in 1966. So far as
the requirement of appointment of a teacher for imparting instruc-
tion ~n a minority language is concerned, it has been drnplement-
ed 'in the states of Uttar Pradesh, Assam, Bihar. Orissa, West Ben-
gal, Kerala, Gujarat, Rajasthan ·and Haryana, In Andhra Pradesh.
1~amil Nadu and Mysore the reqtnslte minimum has been Incre,,-
sed to 10 ,pup'il.., in a class/section U1' 30 pupils in the whole school.
However, in Nagaland, Punjab, Jammu & Kashmir and in all the
Union Territories no orders havabeen made for the 'implementation
of this recommendation. ld, at 117-IH.
11. The Southern Zonal Councu's suggestion was accepted by the
Chief Ministers' Conference in 1961.
 Linguistic Minorities in India 37,5

Commissioner for Linguistic Minorities in order to enable the

educational authorities to assess the demands of such pupils in
advance of the school year and to ensure that such pupils are
not denied facilities of instruction through their mother-tongue
on the basis that their needs were not known to the authorities.
This suggestion which puts teeth into the safeguard, has been
accepted by all the states and actual implementation has been
reported in certain states,1:~
In cases where there are not sufficient number of linguistic
minority pupils for opening a new school or section in a school,
arrangements should be made for inter-school transfers. The im-
plementation of this suggestion originally made by the Southern
Zonal Council and approved by the Chief Mtnisters' Conference
of 1961 would ensure that no pupil of the linguistic minority
community will be refused admission in schools on the basis that
sufficient number is not forthcoming and llhat the educational
authorities will adjust the claims of such students by inter-
school transfers. This suggestion has been accepted by most of
the states but orders for its implementation have been issued
only in some.P

(c) Continuation of Facilities without Reduction

To strengthen this safeguard the Southern Zonal Council had

recommended that all states should take account of the facilities
operating on l st November, 1956 (the date when the states were
reorganised on linguistic basis under the States Reorganisation
Act, 1956) and those facilities should be continued without
diminution. In no individual cases should facilities be reduced
without specific orders from the government applicable to that
case. The main objective was to get a commitment from the states
that whatever facilities were existing on that particular date
should be continued. This suggestion which was endorsed by the
Chief Ministers' Conference of 1961 was accepted by some stat.es

12. Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pra<1esh, Bihar, Kerala, TamIl Nadu. Mysore,
Punjab, Jammu & Kashmir, Ra'asthan, Maharashtra, West Bengal,
Andaman & Nicobar Islands Tripura, Laccadive, Minicoy and Amin-
divi Islands. Linguistic Minorities n~ort, supra note 9 at 117-18.
13. Andhra Pradesh, Kcrala, Madras, !\fysore, ,Punj3Jb, Rajasthan,
Orissa, West Bengal, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Andaman &.
N:cobar Islands, Chandlgarh, Delhi, lr!. nt 119.
.176 Minorities and the Law

and is being implemented.t-

These are the safeguards agreed to by the states. However,
problems do crop up in the implementation of these safeguards.
Various demands and complaints concerning the safeguards are
voiced by the linguistic minority groups before the Commissioner
for Linguistic Minorities. The demands and complaints usually re-
late to the appointment of teachers to teach in the minority
language, introduction of such language as the medium of ins-
truction, free supply of books, decrease in the number of schools,
taking over of private primary schools for the purpose of start-
ing a school in the language of the state, non-appointment of
qualified teachers to teach in minority language, etc. On receipt
of such demands and complaints, the Commissioner takes up the
matter with the concerned state governments and suggests
quicker action to resolve the issues.

2. At the Secondary Stage

The Constitution has not enjoined upon the states to pro-

vide adequate facilities for instruction in the mother-tongue at
the level of secondary education to the linguistic groups. The
Chief Ministers' Conference of 1961 also felt that the mother-
tongue formula could not be fully applied at the "tag(~ of secon-
dary education. This is understandably so because the secon-
dary education is intended to build a base for preparing the
student either for a vocation or for higher education in the uni
versities. Consequently, the media of instruction should be the
modern Indian languages stated in the Eighth Schedule to tho
Constitution as well as English. Exception may he- made for hill
districts of Assam and West Bengal.
Regarding the minimum number of pupils required for
imparting instruction at the secondary stage through minority
language, the Provincial Education Ministers' Conference of
1949 had recommended that if one-third of the pupils in a gov-
ernment school or government aided school request for ins-
truction in their mother-tongue, the government must provide
for such facilities. But the one-third standard was found to be
unsatisactory as in large schools separate sections might be
necessary even if the ratio was less than one-third, whereas in

I·1. Madhya Pradesh, Bihar, o r.ssa, West Bengal. Andhra Prude-h.

Kerala. Tamil Nadu, Mysore, Rajasthan, 'l'ripuru. Gujarnt. Anna-
mnn &. Nirobar Island, Delhi. ta. at 11!1.
 Linguistic Minorities in India 377

small schools separate sections might be uneconomical and not

practicable even if the ratio exceeded one-third. Consequently.
the Southern Zonal Council suggested that the ratio be changed
from one-third to 60 pupils in standards VIII to XI of the
higher secondary course and 15 pupils in each standard, pro-
vided that for the foul' years after the commencement of provi-
sion of the facilities, a minimum of 15 pupils in each standard
will be sufficient. This suggestion was accepted by the Chief
Ministers' Conference of 1961. Most of the states have accepted
In principle the minority languages as media of instruction
when requisite number of pupils is available and have issued
orders for implementation.t-
The recommendations of the Commissioner for Linguistic
Minorities and the Southern Zonal Council as regards the ad-
vance registration of pupils in secondary schools and the conti-
nuation of facilities for teaching minority language in secon-
dary schools as it existed on 1 November, H156, without reduc-
tion were accepted by the states.
The difficulties that are encountered in the effective im-
plementation of these safeguards are: (i) the dearth of teachers
for linguistic minority pupils, and (ii) the lack of text books ill
minority languages. For overcoming these difficulties, the
state governments could either recruit teachers from neighbour-
ing states where the minority language is the regional language,
or start separate training institutions for training minority
language teachers Or reserve adequate seats in the established
training institutions for such teachers. Further, the neighbour-
ing states could agree on a reciprocal basis for training such
teachers. As regards making available the text books needed for
giving instruction in minority language, the state governments
themselves should undertake to prepare them instead of depen-
ding on private agencies. For instance, text books brought
about by the National Council of Educational Research and
Training on minority languages could profitably be adopted by

15. Madhya Pradesh has not agrt:eCl :0 J;IY down a mlrumum number
ur pupils which will make It mcumocnt on the state government to
provide such facilities. Nagalund, .rarnmu & Kashmir and the Union
Territories have not issued orders in this respect. Uttar Pradesh
government has agreed to pro VIae facilities in all government,
municipal and district Iboard schools where one-third of the total
number of pupils of the schools requests for instruction in their
mother-tongue. Linguistic Mino'l'ities Report, supra note 9 nt Appen-
dix VI, 122-2:~.
.178 Minorities and the Law

the states with suitable modifications in order to tid/-! over tho

difficulty of 'text books.
II. USE OF MINORITY LANGUAGES FOR
O}<'FICIAL PURPOSES
The second important problem of the linguistic minorities
concerns the extent of use of minority languages for
official purposes. The impact of administration is felt
more and more on the individuals with the increasing
powers of the state under the concept of welfare state. In such
a situation, where linguistic minority groups do not have ade-
quate knowledge of the official language of the state, some
safeguards should be evolved in order that they understand
the purport and implication of state administrative measures
affecting them. Important laws, government notices, rules, re-
gulations, electoral rolls, forms for permits, licences and va-
rious other purposes, registration of documents, filing docu-
ments in courts, preparation of cause list in subordinate courts,
correspondence with government offices, etc., must be in a lan-
guage intelligible to the linguistic minority groups. Otherwise it
will create undue hardships to them in their dealings with
the administration and in understanding the laws, rules and re-
gulations in force for the time.
Under article 345 of the Constitution, the states can adopt
by legislation the respective regional language Or languages as
the official language or languages. Many states have acted UD-
der this provision, At the same time, article 347 enables the
President to direct in appropriate cases the use of minority lang-
uages in the administration. The article runs as:
On a demand being made in that behalf the President may.
if he is satisfied that a substantial proportion of the popu-
lation of a state desire the use of any language spoken by
them to be recognised by that state, direct that such lang-
uage shall also be officially recognised throughout that
state Or any part thereof for such purpose as he may spe-
cify.
Further, article :~;)O entitles every person to make a rep-
resentation for the redress of any grievance to any officer or
authority of the Union or a state in any of the languages used
in the Union or in the state. The words "used in the Union or
in the state" would suggest that the language of the petition
need not be limited to the official language of the Union Or the
 Lmquistu: Minorities in India 379

states, as the case may be, but could also be in the other language,"
in vogue in the state. The purpose of this provision would seem
to be that a person should not be hampered by the lack of know-
ledge of the official language of the Union or of the state for
voicing his grievances before the administrative hierarchy.
No formal directive has been issued by the President un-
der article ~4 7 for the use of minority ianguago for official pur-
poses in the states. It has been more or less left to the states
through institutions such as Zonal Councils and periodic con-
ferences of the Chief Ministers to provide certain safeguards.
The States Reorganisation Commission, the Union Government
and the Southern Zonal Council had earlier recommended some
safeguards. Subsequently, the Chief Ministers Conference of
1961 agreed on the following safeguards for the use of minority
languages for official purposes at different levels of adminis-
tration.
(a) Where at least 60 per cent of the populatton of a district
speaks or uses a language other than the official language of the
state, this language of the minority group should be recognised
as an ofJicial language in that district, in addition to the state
official language. Ordinarily the Indian languages specified in
the Eighth Schedule to the Constitution need be recognised for
this purpose. Exceptions may be made for hill districts of
Assam and the district of Darjccling in West Bengal when-
languages other than those in the Eighth Schedule may be used.
(b) The official languages of 'the state must be used for official
purposes such as noting on files, and inter-office correspondence.
However, in matters where publicity is required Or any official
matter is to be communicated to the persons belonging to the
linguistic minority groups, other languages in vogue in the state,
in addition to the official language of the state, should be em-
ployed. Similarly the administration should receive petitions and
representations from the public in minority languages and ar-
rangements must be made for publication of the translations of
the important laws, rules, regulations, etc., in minority languages
in states or districts or wherever a linguistic minority forms 15
to 20 per cent of the population. Towards this end a translation
cell must be set up at the state headquarters.

Extent of Implementation

Effective implementation of the above safeguards initially

requires the demarcation of areas in each state where a linguls-
,180 Minorities and the Law

tic minority constitutes 15 to 20 per cent of the population. Most

of the states have prepared lists of such areas.I"
Majority of the states have issued orders that replies to re-
presentations and petitions from the public in a minority lang-
uage should be given, wherever possible, in the language of the
representation. 17
So far as the setting up of translation cells for purposes of
translating the substance of important laws, government notifi-
cations, rules and regulations in minority languages, the states
of Andhra Pradesh, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Mysore, Assam, West
Bengal and Uttar Pradesh have made provisions. \8 The other
states and union territories should not lag behind in the imple-
mentation of this important. safeguard. The linguistic minori-
ties will be further handicapped by the absence of translations
of laws and government rules in their own language. The volume
of laws and delegated legislation in the form of rules, regu-
lations, bye-laws, notifications emanating from the govern-
ment and embracing almost all aspects of an individual's life
is large and every effort should be made by the government to
publish them in the minority languages in addition to the offi-
cial languages of the state.

III. LINGUISTIC MINORITIES AND STATE SERVICES

Recruitment to the services is another problem area of th«

linguistic minorities. With the ever increusing regulation of eco-
nomic and social life by the state, employment opportunities
in the public services are also bound to increase. Consequently
government service offers an attractive and secure career for
young men and women. The members of the linguistic minority

16. Among the states Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, A.93am, West
Bengal, Andhra Pradesh, Kerala, 'lamll Nadu, Mysore Gujarat,
Maharashtra, Haryana, Puniao, and Rajasthan have prepared the
lists. Of the Union Terl'itorie;, Andaman and Nicobar Islands ann
Manipur have prepared the lists. 011 the other hand Bihar, Naga-
land, and Orissa among the states and Chandlgarh, Dara and
Nagar Haveli, Deihl, Himachal Pradesh, Goa, Daman and Dieu,
Laccadive, Minicoy and Amlndlvi Islands ancl Pondicherry among
the Union Terrltor.es have not prepared the Lsts, See Id. at 10.
17. Uttar Pradesh, Assam, Bihar, We,t Bengal, Andhra Pradesh, My.
sore, Keralu, Tamil Nadu, Rajasthan, Punjab and Hurynna. Linqti-
istic Minorities Report, supra note!1 at Chapter H.
IR. l/tid.
 Linguistic 1\1 inorities in india :381

have their aspirations in this regard. In order that their aspira-

tions may find fulfilment as against the legitimate competition
of the dominant language group members, certain safeguards
may have to be made.
When the Constitution came into force, many states had
legislation restricting entry into their services to permanent
residents of the state. The residence requirement prescribed by
the states varied from three to fifteen years. But article 16(1) of
the Constitution provides for equality of opportunity in matters
of public employment. Clause (2) of article 16 provides, inter alia,
that no citizen shall on grounds only of residence be ineligible
for, or discriminated against in respect of any employment or
office under the state. Parliament is, however, competent under
clause (3) of article 16 to regulate the extent to which it would
be permissible for a state to depart from the above principle. The
States Reorganization Commission which considered the issue:'
1 ecommended that if any departure from the principle of non-
ciiscrimination on the ground of residence is to be authorised at
all, it should be such as to cause minimum hardship and that legis-
lation should be undertaken in this regard.Is The Government of
India accepted the above recommendation and the Parliament
enacted the Public Employment (Requirement as to Residence)
Act, 1957, which repealed state laws confining service oppor-
tunities to permanent residents within a state. With the coming
into force of the Parliamentary legislation, domicile tests in
iorce in the aforementioned states which ihad operated to the
uisadvantage of minority groups ceased to have effect.
Another form of discrimination against linguistic minority
groups is the practice in certain states to prescribe a high stan-
dard of proficiency in official language of the state for entry
into state services or by making this language the medium of
various competitive examinations for state services. This prac-
tice tends to keep the state services a virtual monopoly of the
dominant language group. It is necessary that the public ser-
vants should know the official language or languages of the state
concerned. But the issue involved herein is whether members
of one language class should have an initial advantage over those
of the other language class. The States Reorganisation Commis-
sion considered the issue and recommended that for state ser-
vices, apart from the official language or languages of the state.
the candidates should have the option to elect, as the medium of
examination the official language of the Union, Hindi Or English

19. S.H.C. Report 212-213.

382 Minorities and the Law

Or the language of a minority constituting about 15 to 20 per

cent or more of the population of the state. A test of proficiency
In the official language of the state should be conducted after
selection and before the end of probation.w This recommenda-
tion was accepted by the Union Government. But the Conference
of State Chief Ministers in 1961. while agreeing with the recom-
mendations of the States Reorganisation Commission limited the
option to Hindi or English only in addition to the official langu-
age of the state. The Conference also agreed that for purposes
of recruitment to state services, where eligibility requires the
possession of a university degree or a diploma, degrees or diplo-
mas granted by all universities or institutions recognised by the
Central University Grants Commission should be recognised.

Extent of Implementation

While the states have generally agreed that for recruitment

to state services, language should not be a bar, the extent of im-
plementation of the agreed safeguards referred to above is not
uniform in all the states and union territories. The States of
Madhya Pradesh, Assam, Nagaland, West Bengal, Andhra Pra-
desh, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Mysore, Gujarat, Maharasthra,
Rajasthan and the Union Territories of Dadra and Nagar Haveli,
Andaman-Nicobar Islands, Pondicherry, Tripura, Laccadive,
Minicoy and Amindivi Islands and Chandigarh do not require
knowledge of their respective official languages as a prerequisite
for entry into state services. However, the States of Bihar, Uttar
Pradesh, Haryana, Orissa, Punjab, Manipur and Himachal Pra-
uesh have not implemented this safeguard.A
Despite statutory ban on domiciliary restrictions on entry into
state services, advertisements for appointments to services do
appear insisting on residence in a particular state as one of the
conditions of eligibility. Such advertisements are worded as fol-
lows: "from the bona fide resident of "X" state", "from the na-
<ives or persons domiciled in the state" etc. Similarly, the bar
on the requirement of knowledge of official language for state
services is not always complied with by the states. Advertise-
ments with conditions such as "preference will be given to candi-
dates with knowledge of a particular language," appear in the
newspaper thus violating the agreed safeguards on recruitment

20. Ibid.
21. Section 18 of the States Reorg uu.sation Act, 1956.
 Linguistic Minorities in India 383

to state services.

IV. CONCLUSION

The survey of constitutional safeguards and other safeguards

agreed to by the states and the Union from time to time to deal
with the problems of the linguistic minorities in the educational
held, in respect of the use of minority languages in the adminis-
tration and recruitment to state services indicates that the states
have in principle agreed to the implementation of such safe-
guards. The safeguards are reasonable and sound. But it is the
extent of implementation of such safeguards and occasional
violation by the states of the spirit underlying suoh safeguards
that give rise to complaints by the linguistic minority communi-
ties. It is in this respect that the office of the Commissioner for
Linguistic Minorities presents a valuable forum for the linguistic
minority groups to ventilate their grievances. The Commissioner
seeks information from the Union Government, State Govern-
ments and the Union territories and undertakes extensive tours
all Over the country to investigate the grievances and demands
of the linguistic minority groups and recommend remedial action
by the governments concerned. There is an annual review of the
working of these safeguards by the Commissioner. Though the
recommendations of the Commission have only persuasive value
so far as the governments are concerned, we may point out that
on the whole the governments have been found to be amenable to
persuasion.
At present the Commissioner has only one central office
consisting of a small number of administrative and ministerial
staff. Considering the size of the country and the continued exis-
tence of the linguistic minority groups in different parts despite
the formation of unlingual states, we may suggest the establish-
ment of regional offices under the Commissioner to exercise con-
stant vigil over the extent of implementation of safeguards and
impress upon the governments concerned the necessity of ex-
peditious implementation to allay the fears of the linguistic
minority groups. As a supervising and recommending agency the
confidence of the linguistic minorities in the office of the Com-
missioner could be sustained and strengthened only by the cease-
~ess efforts of the Commissioner and his staff to persuade the
governments to implement the safeguards already agreed upon
and to agree upon further safeguards found necessary in the
light of problems which may arise afresh. In addition we may
suggest a more frequent review and coordination of the imple-
3lJ4 Minorities and the Law

mentation of safeguards by forming Standing Committees of all

the five Zonal Councils in India. The Zonal Councils have the
power to appoint suoh Committees under the States Reorganisa-
tion Act. These Committees could discuss. all problems that arise
with regard to the working of the safeguards for linguistic
minorities and suggest solutions. But in the ultimate analysis,
whatever may be the agency to safeguard the interests of
linguistic minorities, the administration of these safeguards will
depend on the sense of fairplay and goodwill of the dominant
langl''ige group.