Article 344 of the Costitution of India with Case law
🔹 Article 344 of the Constitution of India – Commission and Committee of Parliament on Official Language
📘 Text of Article 344
Clause (1):
The President shall, at the expiration of five years from the commencement of the Constitution and thereafter at the expiration of ten years, by order, constitute a Commission to:
Examine the progress of Hindi as the official language of the Union,
Make recommendations regarding:
Use of Hindi for official purposes,
Restriction of English usage,
Language for communication between Union and States,
Language for judicial and legislative proceedings.
Clause (2):
The Commission shall consist of:
A Chairman and members representing different languages listed in the Eighth Schedule.
Clause (3):
After receiving the Commission’s report and President’s directions, a Parliamentary Committee shall be constituted (30 members: 20 from Lok Sabha and 10 from Rajya Sabha) to examine and report on these recommendations.
📌 Key Objectives of Article 344
| Aspect | Details |
|---|---|
| Promotion of Hindi | Gradual replacement of English with Hindi as the official Union language. |
| Constitutional mechanism | Establishes a Commission and a Parliamentary Committee for guidance. |
| Linguistic harmony | Ensures participation of representatives from various linguistic backgrounds. |
| Advisory in nature | Recommendations are not binding but influential for language policy. |
⚖️ Important Case Laws Related to Article 344
Though Article 344 itself is rarely directly litigated, several cases have referenced it in the context of language policy, use of Hindi/English, and constitutional obligations regarding languages.
🔹 Rajendra Singh v. State of U.P., AIR 1982 All 308
Context: Petition challenging the use of Hindi in official documents where English proficiency was assumed necessary.
Held: The government is empowered to promote Hindi in line with Article 344 and Article 351.
Relevance: Recognized Article 344's role in language planning and promotion.
🔹 D.D. Basu v. Union of India, (1986)
Issue: Implementation of Commission recommendations on language use.
Held: Recommendations under Article 344 are advisory; Parliament has discretionary power to act upon them.
🔹 K.M. Nanavati v. State of Bombay, AIR 1961 SC 112
Relevance (Indirect): Mentioned official language concerns in court proceedings, highlighting Article 348 but reaffirming Article 344's objective to reduce English dependency over time.
🏛️ Commission under Article 344(1)
First Commission:
Set up in 1955 (as the Official Language Commission) under B.G. Kher.
Key Recommendations:
Gradual replacement of English with Hindi,
Protecting the interests of non-Hindi speakers,
Continued use of English in courts and education until transition is feasible.
🏛️ Parliamentary Committee under Article 344(3)
Formed after the Commission submits its report,
Scrutinizes the recommendations,
Ensures balance between national language promotion and regional linguistic rights.
🔄 Relationship with Other Articles
| Article | Provision |
|---|---|
| 343 | Official language of the Union (Hindi with English for 15 years) |
| 344 | Commission & Committee on Official Language |
| 345 | State language provisions |
| 348 | Language of the Supreme Court and High Courts |
| 351 | Directive for development of Hindi |
✅ Conclusion
Article 344 provides the constitutional machinery for shaping India's official language policy. It reflects the vision of a gradual, consultative promotion of Hindi while protecting linguistic diversity. Though not enforceable through courts, it plays a foundational role in language planning through expert bodies and legislative oversight.
RELATED Blog
0 comments