<?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>1971 (5) TMI 69 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=185162</link>
    <description>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&#039;s coordinating sphere. The document also states that circulars and resolutions compelling Punjabi and Gurmukhi as the sole medium and script infringed minority institutions&#039; 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.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 05 May 1971 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 02 Aug 2016 16:07:46 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=437102" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1971 (5) TMI 69 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=185162</link>
      <description>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&#039;s coordinating sphere. The document also states that circulars and resolutions compelling Punjabi and Gurmukhi as the sole medium and script infringed minority institutions&#039; 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.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 05 May 1971 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=185162</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>