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

 

W. P. No. 818 of 2022

 

1. Mutharasan,

Secretary of Tamil Nadu unit of

Communist Party of India                  

Tamil Nadu,

43/19, Chevalier Shivaji Ganesan Street,

Anna Colony,

1. Nagar,

Impleading Petitioner Chennai 600017.

 

 

Vs.

1.Thiru. Arjunan Elayaraja,

Secretary, Aalamaram NGO,

Thiagavalli and Post,

Cuddalore Taluk     …Respondent-1

Cuddalore District.             /Petitioner

 

2. The Secretary,

Ministry of Education,

Government of India,    ….Respondent-2

New Delhi      /Respondent-1

 

3. The Secretary,

Ministry of Human Resource Development,

Government of India,    ….Respondent-3

New Delhi.      /Respondent-2

 

4. 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

 

6. Secretary to Government,

State of Tamil Nadu,

Department of School Education,                               

Fort St. George,     ….Respondent-6

Chennai 600009      /Respondent-5

 

 

 

 

         Impleading Affidavit 

 

 

I, R. Mutharasan, S/o Ramasamy, aged about 72 years,

Secretary of the Tamil Nadu unit of the Communist Party of India, Balan Illam, 43/19, 6^th Floor, Chevalier Sivaji Ganesan Road, Thyagarayar Nagar, Chennai 600017, being well aware of the facts of the case do hereby file this impleading petition. I solemnly affirm and sincerely state as follows:

1. I submit that I am the Secretary of the State Unit of the Communist Party of India, one of the recognisednational level -politicalparties in India. The party was founded in 1925 and has been working for the causes of the downtrodden people everywhere. I feel concerned about the issues raised by the Respondent-1 herein, in his affidavit in the main Writ Petition, as they would adversely affect the entire Indian society. The thrust of the Writ Petition being about the enforcement of National Educational Policy, 2020 in Tamil Nadu and through that the spread of Hindi and Sanskrit there, I am entitled to place the relevant facts with reference to the contents of the Affidavit filed by the Respondent-1 herein, to enable the Hon’ble High Court to effectively and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions in the Petition. I, therefore, pray that I may be permitted to implead myself as a Respondent in the main W.P.
2. I submit that the arguments of the Petitioner in his entire Affidavit are patently unlawful for the very simple reason that the Official Languages Act, 1963 cannot be enforced in Tamil Nadu because of the reason that the Official Language Rules, 1976 does not apply to Tamil Nadu, as could be seen from Rule 1 (ii) thereof, which categorically declares that the said Rules “shall extend to the whole of India, except the State of Tamil Nadu”.
3. I also submit that the Petitioner is manipulating many facts and is trying to get an order through judiciary to deny the right of the people of Tamil Nadu to get the impact of the National Educational Policy, 2020 analysed by their Government, the Respondents 4, 5 & 6, by setting up a committee of experts concerned about the welfare of the people of Tamil Nadu. The averments of the Petitioner in Para 14 of his Affidavit that the Government of Tamil Nadu “sets up committees on its own with a view to get reports as it likes” is, simply, preposterous, and outrageous. The right of the people of Tamil Nadu to evaluate the consequences of a policy thrust on them cannot be attempted to be thwarted and denied by this kind of arguments. It is very apparent that the Petitioner in the main Writ Petition attempts to abuse the process of law and use the higher Judiciary to achieve his nefarious ends.
4. Besides the aforesaid observation of the Respondent-1 herein proves that the Government of India, the Respondents 1 and 2 in the main Writ Petition, had set up their Committee and got the report as they liked. This kind of arguments on the part of the Respondent-1 herein make his case frivolous and thoughtless, necessitating his Petition rejected at the threshold itself.
5. I submit that the historical reasons behind the insertion of such a phrase in the said Rule 1 (ii) are facts relevant to the case and cannot be ignored in a judicial process in this Writ proceedings, especially when the Petitioner refers extensively to Art. 343 (1) and Art. 351 of the Constitution also in his Petition which he projects as one pertaining to the National Education Policy, 2020. He goes to the extent of citing the rulings of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as precedents to force Hindi on Tamils, although they are not relevant to the facts in issue in his Writ Petition and are subject to the Doctrine of Sub-silentio. His averment in Para 31 of his Affidavit in the main W.P. that “considering the Constitutional mandate and the Apex Court judgments, respondents 1 and 2 have to actually make Hindi compulsory and may be, Sanskrit, optional” is outrageous, given the facts behind the aforesaid two provisions of the Constitution and the exemption given to Tamil Nadu in the Official Language Rules, 1976. 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.
6. I submit that The Hindu newspaper had, in its editorial dated 16.08.1937 itself, 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.
7. I submit that the experience of the Non-Hindi States like Maharashtra, Punjab, Gujarat and Odisha 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 Respondent1 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.
8. 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).
9. 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.
10. I submit that these events which had taken place before and outside the Constituent Assembly are very relevant to the issues raised by the Petitioner in this case. Hon’ble Apex Court had in Para 677 of its Mandal Judgment referred to the debates in the Constituent Assembly considering that they were relevant to arrive at a decision. There is a catena of judgments like that which referred to the debates in the Constituent Assembly and the Parliament to decide the facts in issues before the judiciary.
11. I submit that all the Non-Hindi people do have their inalienable right to love and promote their mother tongues and they have the duty to protect their mother-tongues 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.
12. I submit that the contents of the report given in the year 1955 by the State Reorganisation Commission constituted by the Government of India in the year 1953 do have a strong bearing on the issues raised by the Petitioner in the main Writ Petition and they are required to be examined to ensure that there is no scope for anyone, later, to raise any issue by invoking the Doctrine of Sub Silentio in having arrived at that final decision which affects the Right to Dignity and Right to Equality of the majority of the people of India who belong to the NonHindi belt.
13. I submit that in view of the Relevant Facts placed, it is necessary in the interest of justice that I am 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 evidences, on being permitted to implead myself by the Hon’ble High Court.

Prayer:

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

Dated this day, the 28^{th of} February 2022 at Chennai.

 

 

Before me

Solemnly affirmed and signed       in my presence on this day, the

28^th of February 2022 at

Chennai.

Advocate: Chennai