<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1962 (2) TMI 90 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182357</link>
    <description>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.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 21 Feb 1962 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 18 Aug 2025 11:04:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=427385" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1962 (2) TMI 90 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182357</link>
      <description>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.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 21 Feb 1962 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182357</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>