Introduction
In the past couple of years, India has witnessed a gradual shift towards Hindi as the default language of governance. Central government notifications, administrative orders, and even social media updates from central ministries are increasingly being published in Hindi, often without accompanying English or regional language translations. While Hindi enjoys the status of an official language under Article 343, the Constitution never envisioned it as the primary language of state communication. Yet, in practice, linguistic neutrality is eroding, and this shift has not gone unnoticed in non-Hindi-speaking states. This tension is ever more apparent in Tamil Nadu (“TN”), where the centre’s insistence on imposition of the National Education Policy, 2020 (“NEP”) and its three-language formula has reignited the decades-old resistance to Hindi imposition.
The NEP does not mandate Hindi but allows states to implement any two Indian languages alongside English. However, this flexibility is largely illusory. The reality is that resource constraints make Hindi the only practical option in non-Hindi states such as Tamil Nadu, given the current political state of the nation. A policy that appears optional in theory becomes coercive in practice. The Union Education Minister has maintained that the NEP (and by extension, the imposition of Hindi) is a constitutional mandate. In light of the developments, the author argues that the imposition of Hindi language in education through the three-language formula violates the fundamental rights of the citizens of Tamil Nadu.
Does Hindi language imposition violate fundamental rights?
The Right under Article 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g)
In State of Karnataka v. Associated Management, the Supreme Court deliberated on the constitutionality of a Karnataka Government order imposing the mother tongue, Kannada, as the medium of instruction (“MOI”) in schools. The policy was challenged on grounds of violation of, inter alia, articles 19(1)(a) [freedom of speech] and 19(1)(g) [freedom of occupation]. On the question of article 19(1)(a), the court rightly adopted an expansive interpretation of the same and opined that the freedom of speech is indispensable to individual autonomy, personal development and identity. In doing so, the court held the freedom of the child to be instructed in a language of their choice to be an intrinsic part of this right. Furthermore, the court also held that under article 19(1)(g), a citizen not only has the right to establish an educational institution but also the right to choose the particular language which shall be the MOI. The court has clearly stated that ‘freedom’ under Article 19 means the absence of state interference, making it clear that the state cannot dictate a student’s linguistic choices under the guise of educational policy.
The Supreme Court approved a similar interpretation in 1995, albeit in a different context of broadcasting rights of an organisation. In Secretary, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting v. Cricket Association of Bengal (1995), the Court ruled that Article 19(1)(a) encompasses not just the right to impart information but also to receive it. Education, at its core, is an act of receiving information, and by extension, students should have a right to receive education in a language of their choice.
The Right to Receive Education in a Language of Choice
It is acknowledged that the NEP’s requirement of an additional Indian language is not per se an imposition of a MOI across all subjects. However, for students who do not speak Hindi, being forced to study it means being forced to learn in a language they have not freely chosen. Article 32 of the Constitution deals with the enforcement of fundamental rights of the citizens. While establishing whether there has been a violation of a fundamental right, the Court has to consider the direct and inevitable consequences of the action which is sought to be remedied; this was laid down by the SC in the case of Hindi Hitrakshak Samiti v UOI (1990). In other words, even if a policy does not explicitly violate a fundamental right, it may still be struck down if its practical implementation has the same effect as a direct restriction. The moment Hindi is introduced as a compulsory subject, it necessarily dictates the medium in which that subject istaught. This creates an indirect but undeniable restriction on the right to receive education in the language of one’s choice and places an unreasonable burden on non-Hindi speakers.
Structural Coercion Under the NEP
The Centre might argue that the imposition of Hindi might be justified under article 29(1), which grants all linguistic communities the right to conserve their language, script, and culture. The SC has given a wide interpretation to the phrase “any section of the Indian citizens” to allow even a majority community to claim such rights under this provision. However, the SC has also held that the provision is a remedial one, designed to safeguard communities from state policies that threaten their continued existence. India’s linguistic framework is often described as multilingual, but Ajit Mohanty’s research challenges the assumption that all languages enjoy equal status within this system. Instead, he argues that Indian multilingualism is one of unequals, where languages exist in a hierarchical structure. The three-language formula, which claims to promote multilingualism, operates within this pre-existing linguistic inequality—one where Hindi is structurally privileged over other Indian languages. Unlike regional or tribal languages, Hindi (as the official language) enjoys state-backed institutional dominance in governance, education, public-sector employment, etc. and as such does not face an existential threat that would justify invoking article 29(1) as a basis for its further imposition.
Proportionality and the Limits of State Power
Courts have upheld reasonable restrictions on fundamental rights in limited circumstances, but such restrictions must satisfy the four-pronged test of proportionality laid out in the landmark Puttaswamy judgement. As per this test, firstly, the action must be sanctioned by law. As the NEP does not legally mandate the imposition of Hindi language across educational institutions in Tamil Nadu, although political constraints might coerce the state into adopting the same, it cannot be held to be sanctioned by law. Secondly, the objective must be to address a legitimate need for the same in a democratic society. Given that TN has consistently outperformed many Hindi-speaking states with respect to the quality of education. the imposition of Hindi cannot be seen as a response to a pressing social need.
Thirdly, the restriction must be proportionate to the need it seeks to address. Since a meagre 2.11% of the population in TN speaks Hindi, such a unilateral imposition to compel the dissenting citizens to learn a completely new language can by no means be considered proportional to the purported need it seeks to address. In Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020), the Supreme Court ruled that a restriction must not impose an excessive burden if there exist less restrictive alternatives.Alternative options such as voluntary Hindi instruction, programs to promote Hindi at a socio-cultural level, etc. are less restrictive ways to promote Hindi proficiency without forcing Tamil-speaking students into compliance. Lastly, the test mandates the existence of procedural safeguards to protect against the abuse of such interference. The Centre’s blatant disregard of the demands of TN’s citizens coupled with the withholding of funds for a pre-approved central policy reeks of procedural abuse. The imposition thus fails on all four counts.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court has already recognized the right to choose one’s medium of instruction as a fundamental aspect of Article 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g). The NEP’s three-language policy, though on the face of it appears a dynamic policy to further the nation’s multilingual ethos, operates as an indirect imposition of Hindi, eroding its fabric in practice. Article 32 would require an assessment beyond the policy’s text and examine its direct and inevitable consequences—which, in this case, amount to linguistic coercion rather than genuine multilingualism. The policy also fails on all four counts of the proportionality test and thus is an unreasonable restriction on the freedom to make autonomous educational choices.
This article in no way disregards the progressive elements of the NEP in modernising India’s education system, but there is an urgent need for reform in the three-language policy. For India to uphold its commitment to multilingualism, linguistic policies must be grounded in choice rather than coercion. The solution lies not in a top-down imposition of a uniform dominant language but in allowing individual autonomy to flourish. The centre must make sure that the education policy aligns with India’s federalist structure rather than a majoritarian vision of national identity. But at the moment, the onus is on the Supreme Court to take cognisance of this issue and adjudicate on the constitutionality of the policy.
The Author is a first year student of National Academy of Legal Studies and Research University of Law, Hyderabad
Image Credits: Kannada Dindima by RN Chandrashekhara
Constitutional Law Society 
Leave a comment