There Must Be Detailed Dialogue And Discussion: Supreme Court While Dismissing Plea For Declaring Sanskrit As National Language
"So many aspects are required to be considered before declaring a particular language as a national language. For the aforesaid, there must be a healthy detailed dialogue and discussion", the Supreme Court observed while dismissing a PIL praying to declare Sanskrit as a national language.
The Bench of Justice M. R. Shah and Justice Krishna Murari dismissed the plea on September, 2 and the order was uploaded recently.
The PIL was filed by K. G. Vanzara, a retired IAS officer and the brother of former Gujarat IPS officer DG Vanzara. K. G. Vanzara is practising law post his retirement. Vanzara appeared in person to argue the case.
In the PIL filed in the year 2020, K. G. Vanzara had contended that India should learn from Israel on how they revived their 2000-year-old Hebrew language. He also contended that with Sanskrit, the memorizing capacity in children will increase. It was his contention that both the official and national language can be different without affecting the framework of the constitution.
During the hearing, Vanzara reportedly quoted a former judge of the Supreme Court of Calcutta during the British rule, Sir William Jones, who said that out of the 22 languages he studied, Sanskrit was found to be the mother language. The Bench responded by saying "We share that view. We know that several words in Hindi and other state languages have come from Sanskrit. But this cannot be the ground to declare the language as a national language. For us to declare a language is very difficult."
"Apart from the fact that it will be in the realm of the policy decision and even for the aforesaid, the Constitution of India is to be amended. No writ of mandamus can be issued to make a particular policy decision directing to declare the Sanskrit Language as a national language", the Bench said in its order.
The Petitioner then sought permission to make an appropriate representation to the appropriate authority. "He may do so, if so advised", the Court said while dismissing the Writ Petition.
Cause Title: K. G. Vanzara v. Union of India