Context:

• A single judge bench of Rajasthan High Court recently set aside Rajasthan government’s decision to convert Shri Hari Singh Government Senior Secondary School in Peelwa, Jodhpur district, to an English medium one.
• The court ruled that the conversion of a Hindi medium school to English mid-session violates Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution (freedom of speech and expression) and cannot be permitted.

Key Points:

• Article 21A of the Constitution provides for “free and compulsory education to all children of the age of six to fourteen years”.
• It was inserted by the Constitution (Eighty Sixth Amendment) Act, 2010.
• The High Court judgment came on a petition filed by the parents of the school’s students and the School Development Management Committee (SDMC).
• It was submitted that the mid-session change in the medium of education was unconstitutional and in breach of students’ fundamental rights. 
• The parents maintained that they were not against English as a medium of instruction, but against the complete conversion of the present institution.
• The abrupt change, they said, would compel students to take admission in other schools during the academic session, which would affect their studies.
• The Rajasthan state government maintained that the students could easily take admission in the several Hindi medium government schools in the same area.
• However, the High Court rejected the contention, through an analysis of the applicable constitutional provisions.

• The Rajasthan HC, however, did not accept the petitioners’ contention that Article 21A covers the right to receive education in Hindi. 
• It held that the wording of the article is not absolute and allows for the state to determine the medium of instruction “by law” and referred to a 2014 verdict of the Supreme Court, which had decided on similar lines.
• The court held that no child or parent can claim it as a matter of right, that he/his ward should be instructed in a particular language or the mother tongue only, based on what has been guaranteed under Article 21A of the Constitution.
• However, at the same time, the court recognised that it could not be held that the right to education is not covered by any of the fundamental rights and stated that it is part and parcel of Article 19 (1) (a), which provides for the freedom of speech and expression.
• The bench proceeded to examine the restrictions provided by Article 19 (2), holding that the state government’s decision in the present case, which was purely administrative, is not a “reasonable restriction” under the meaning of Article 19 (2).
• Clause (2) can only be invoked “in the interest of sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the state, friendly relations with foreign states, public order, decency or morality or concerning contempt of court, defamation or incitement of an offence,” the court said.