Exclusive-medium of instruction limits in higher education require clear authority and must not impair constitutional standards control.

The Gujarat University Act, 1949 was construed as not authorising the University to compel Gujarati or Hindi as the exclusive medium of instruction and examination in affiliated colleges; its provisions were read as promoting regional languages, not creating an implied power of exclusivity. On constitutional competence, the Court held that State control over education extends to medium of instruction only within its proper field, but any law affecting higher education so as to impair co-ordination or standards falls within Entry 66 of List I to that extent. The exclusive-medium provisions in the impugned statutes and circulars were therefore not sustained, though the dissent took the view that the State and University could impose an exclusive medium.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Gujarat University Act, 1949 empowered the University to prescribe Gujarati or Hindi as an exclusive medium of instruction and examination in affiliated colleges. (ii) Whether legislation imposing such an exclusive medium in higher education trenches upon Entry 66 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution.

Issue (i): Whether the Gujarat University Act, 1949 empowered the University to prescribe Gujarati or Hindi as an exclusive medium of instruction and examination in affiliated colleges.

Analysis: The operative provisions conferring power on the University to provide instruction, lay down courses, guide teaching, hold examinations, and do incidental acts were construed as not authorising exclusion of other media by mere implication. Clause 4(27), read with the use of the indefinite article and the scheme of the Act, was held to be a provision promoting Gujarati and Hindi as media and not conferring power to compel exclusive use of those languages. The proviso extending English as a medium was treated as a continuation of the existing medium and not as a source of a new power to impose exclusivity.

Conclusion: The University had no power under the Act to impose Gujarati or Hindi as the exclusive medium of instruction and examination.

Issue (ii): Whether legislation imposing such an exclusive medium in higher education trenches upon Entry 66 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution.

Analysis: Entry 11 of List II was read subject to Entries 63 to 66 of List I, and Entry 66 was construed as covering co-ordination and determination of standards in higher education. The majority held that State power over education includes medium of instruction in its proper field, but that any State law whose effect on higher education is such as to impair standards or obstruct co-ordination would fall within the Union field to that extent. On the facts, the Court held that the amendment extending English did not intrude upon Entry 66, while the challenged statutes and circulars, insofar as they sought to enforce an exclusive medium, were invalid for want of authority under the Act.

Conclusion: A State law prescribing an exclusive medium may be valid only so far as it does not prejudice co-ordination and determination of standards in higher education; the impugned exclusive-medium provisions could not be sustained.

Final Conclusion: The appeals failed, and the High Court's invalidation of the exclusive-medium statutes and enforcement circulars was upheld, while the declaration striking down the proviso to clause 4(27) and section 38A was set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: A university statute may be construed to promote a regional language as a medium of instruction, but a power to prescribe instruction does not, without clear words or necessary implication, include power to impose that medium exclusively; and any State law in higher education that materially impairs co-ordination and determination of standards falls within the Union field under Entry 66.

Concurring/Dissenting Opinion: Subba Rao, J. dissented and held that the State Legislature could prescribe an exclusive medium of instruction under Entry 11 of List II and that the University Act empowered the University to do so; on that view, the appeals ought to have been allowed.

---