INTRODUCTION
The Karnataka State government recently passed an ordinance which puts imposition on establishments such as shops, enterprises, and institution sign boards to use 60% Kannada. The Kannada Language Comprehensive Development (Amendment) ordinance ensures that all signboards and nameplates of commercial establishments, industries, hospitals and organizations will compulsorily have 60% information in Kannada[1].
In December, several establishments such as Starbucks were vandalized because of the lack of Kannada language in the signboards.
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION
Article 345 of the constitution of India states that a state can have its official language for the matters of promotion and publication of the majority-speaking language. It reads as,
“ 345. Official language or languages of a State[2].—Subject to the provisions of articles 346 and 347, the Legislature of a State may by law adopt any one or more of the languages in use in the State or Hindi as the language or languages to be used for all or any of the official purposes of that State:
Provided that, until the Legislature of the State otherwise provided by law, the English language shall continue to be used for those official purposes within the State for which it was being used immediately before the commencement of this Constitution.”
As per this provision, the Kannada language was adopted as the official language. The main objective was to develop the regional language in furtherance of which the state enacted the Karnataka Official Language Act, 1963 and Karnataka Local Authorities (Official Language) Act, 1981.
Further in the year of 2015, Kannada Language Learning Act, 2015 was enacted to ensure the learning of Kannada as one of the languages in all schools in the state of Karnataka[3].
NEED FOR THE ORDINANCE :
The government’s fundamental reason for enacting such rules was that despite such enactments, notifications and orders, there is no progress in the implementation of the official language. It was presumed that the Kannada language was not taught up to expectations by the schools. This pattern was specifically seen in the higher or technical or professional education classes.
Another main reason was that there was no implementation of the Kannada language in offices, industries, shops and establishments. The ordinance states that :
“Considering the scenario, to ensure the extensive use and propagation of Kannada Language and to coordinate the activities relating to the implementation of Kannada as Official Language new law is essential”
Other features of the Act also include setting up obligations for businesses to issue the directions of use in Kannada, reservation of seats for students who have studied in Kannada medium, establishing kannada cells by manufacturers to promote kannada in daily work. The ordinance also mandates that for non-kannada speaking employees teaching units to be set up[4].
ANALYSIS :
The amendment of the language act proposes the promotion of the Kannada language in an indirect manner. It is contemplated that these rules if not followed would only lead to more harm and violent behaviour from mobs. The primary question that arises is, whether this rule along with the bill is unfair to other citizens of the country who are domiciled in Karnataka.
Under the ambit of Article 14, the state should ensure that there is equal treatment to all the citizens and that should be upheld by the state machinery. The Supreme Court held that what cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly in various instances[5]. The rules put an imposition on the businesses to employ persons who are fluent in Kannada. This disposes of the idea of equality as the enjoyment of privileges only by the “Kannadigas” is arbitrary and unconstitutional.
Additionally, it is a fundamental right of the citizens to free speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a). Adding an arbitrary rule on how business should express or the employees must be hired based on language seems purely not in line with the law. The Supreme Court also held that giving preference based on language gives undue advantage to less meritorious candidates must be followed[6].
It has been held multiple times by the courts that forcing someone to learn a language goes beyond all ideas of democracy. The free state concept, that is the right citizens hold to express themselves is an absolute privilege that must not be regulated. In the case of the Kailash Chandra Sharma V State of Rajasthan[7], The Court noted that treating a person with permanent residence in Tamil Nadu or who speaks Tamil, differently in Karnataka may violate his right against discrimination and freedom to freely move through the country. It also noted that it would derecognise the essential unity and integrity of the country by treating it as if it were a mere conglomeration of independent states.
While it is completely reasonable to promote language as it is constitutionally valid, the balance between extensiveness and intensity of such promotion should be met. Noncompliance with the rules comes along with the penalty of fines to the establishments.
In a survey, it was identified that in over 12 districts of Karnataka, at least 10% of the domicile residents are non-kannada speakers[8]. This gives the idea that the implementation of such rules would make the everyday lives of non-kannada speaker extremely difficult as they are forced to learn a new language.
CONCLUSION :
The Chief Minister of Karnataka gave way for 60% Kannada in signboards of various institutions including hospitals in the doorway of promoting the language. The CM has also stated that the rest of the board can be in any other language. However, the problem arises in interpreting the 60% and the violent reactions for non-compliance despite there being a law to provide a penalty. The rule should be in such a way that it does not hamper business and maintain peace and order in the country. It should be kept in mind that in a democracy like India, where all cultures and practices are welcomed, the rules should be made in consonance with the same neutral perspective.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- Sanjana Ravichandran
[1] Yamini CS, “Karnataka cabinet approves 60% Kannada language rule on sign boards”, HINDUSTAN TIMES (Jan 06, 2024) https://www.hindustantimes.com/cities/bengaluru-news/karnataka-cabinet-approves-60-kannada-language-rule-on-sign-boards-101704523506007.html
[2] Constitution of India, Art 345
[3] THE KANNADA LANGUAGE COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT ACT, 2022
[4]The kannada language comprehensive development bill, 2022 – State legislative brief https://prsindia.org/bills/states/the-kannada-language-comprehensive-development-bill-2022#_edn10
[5] Delhi Administration v. Gurdip Singh Uban & Ors., 2000.
[6] Sunanda Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1995), AIR1995 SC 914.
[7] Kailash Chand Sharma v. State of Rajasthan (2002), AIR2002 SC 2877.
[8] Population Census 2011 : PRS
