University medium of instruction rules cannot compel exclusive Punjabi and Gurmukhi where minority educational rights are protected.

Section 4(2) of the Punjabi University Act was construed as permitting only a progressive adoption of Punjabi as a medium of instruction and examination, not as authorising Punjabi as the exclusive medium. A reading that imposed compulsory exclusivity would conflict with the constitutional allocation of legislative power, since standards in higher education fall within the Union's coordinating sphere. The document also states that circulars and resolutions compelling Punjabi and Gurmukhi as the sole medium and script infringed minority institutions' rights under Articles 29(1) and 30(1), because minority educational institutions retain protection for their language, script, culture and choice of medium of instruction.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Section 4(2) of the Punjabi University Act authorised the University to make Punjabi the exclusive medium of instruction and examination for affiliated colleges, and whether such prescription was within the State legislature's competence in view of the Union's power to maintain standards in higher education. (ii) Whether the impugned circulars and resolutions compelling Punjabi and Gurmukhi as the sole medium and script infringed the rights of minority institutions under Articles 29(1) and 30(1) of the Constitution.

Issue (i): Whether Section 4(2) of the Punjabi University Act authorised the University to make Punjabi the exclusive medium of instruction and examination for affiliated colleges, and whether such prescription was within the State legislature's competence in view of the Union's power to maintain standards in higher education.

Analysis: The provision was construed as empowering only a progressive adoption of Punjabi as a medium of instruction and examination, not as authorising its compulsory and exclusive use. A construction that made Punjabi the sole medium would conflict with the constitutional distribution of legislative power where standards in higher education fall within the Union's coordinating sphere. The statutory language did not compel exclusion of other media, and the University could not enlarge its power by treating the regional language as the only permissible medium.

Conclusion: Section 4(2) did not authorise the University to prescribe Punjabi as the exclusive medium, and the State enactment could not be read so as to confer such compulsive power.

Issue (ii): Whether the impugned circulars and resolutions compelling Punjabi and Gurmukhi as the sole medium and script infringed the rights of minority institutions under Articles 29(1) and 30(1) of the Constitution.

Analysis: Minority institutions have a protected right to conserve their language, script and culture and to administer educational institutions of their choice. That protection includes a corresponding choice of medium of instruction. While a university may prescribe a medium for its own academic purposes, it cannot, by compulsory affiliation, force minority institutions to abandon their own language or script, or require their students to be examined only in a medium and script alien to them. The later relaxations did not cure the invalidity because they still left the minority institutions subject to an impermissible compulsory regime.

Conclusion: The circulars and resolutions were invalid and violated the constitutional rights of the petitioners.

Final Conclusion: The compulsory insistence on Punjabi as the sole medium and on Gurmukhi as the exclusive script could not be sustained against minority educational rights, and the petitioners were entitled to relief.

Ratio Decidendi: A university may prescribe a medium of instruction within its statutory power, but it cannot compel minority educational institutions to use an exclusive medium or script that overrides their constitutional right to conserve language, script and culture and to administer their institutions of choice.

---