Article 349 of the Costitution of India with Case law
📘 Article 349 of the Constitution of India – Special Procedure for Enactment of Certain Laws Relating to Language
🔹 Text of Article 349:
During the first fifteen years from the commencement of the Constitution, no Bill or amendment making provisions for the language to be used for any of the purposes mentioned in Article 348(1) shall be introduced or moved in either House of Parliament without the President’s prior sanction, and the President shall not give such sanction unless the Bill has been recommended by the President after considering the report of the Commission constituted under Article 344(1) and the views expressed by the Union and State Governments.
🔎 Explanation of Key Terms:
Article 348(1) refers to:
Use of English language in the Supreme Court and High Courts.
Use of English in authoritative texts of laws made by Parliament and State Legislatures.
Article 349 was a temporary safeguard (for 15 years) to:
Prevent hasty changes in the official judicial language (English).
Ensure that any law affecting language policy in courts and legislation is made carefully, considering expert advice and State views.
Article 344(1) established a Commission on Official Language, which would report on the progress of Hindi and other languages.
📜 Purpose and Historical Background:
The Constitution initially adopted English for official purposes and court proceedings.
However, there was a vision to gradually replace English with Hindi.
Article 349 served as a control mechanism to ensure this transition happens with consensus and preparedness — not unilaterally or abruptly.
⚖️ Relevant Case Law and Commentary:
Though no major Supreme Court ruling deals directly with Article 349 (as it is largely transitional and time-bound), its principles have been discussed in the following contexts:
🔹 **1. Rajendra Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1965 All 491
Issue: Validity of using Hindi instead of English in subordinate courts.
Held: State Governments can permit Hindi in courts only if a law is made as per Article 348(2).
While Article 349 wasn’t directly applied, the case stressed that language changes in courts require strict constitutional compliance, including Presidential sanction where applicable.
🔹 **2. State of Rajasthan v. Union of India, AIR 1977 SC 1361
Broadly dealt with Centre-State relations and the supremacy of constitutional procedure.
Cited language provisions to highlight that constitutional processes, like those under Article 349, are binding and cannot be bypassed.
🔹 3. Legal Commentaries (e.g., M.P. Jain, D.D. Basu):
Article 349 is seen as a safeguard to prevent linguistic domination and ensure inclusive policy-making regarding official and judicial languages.
Commentators note its historical importance, though its effect ceased after 1965 (15 years after 1950).
📝 Key Takeaways:
| Aspect | Details |
|---|---|
| Scope | Laws under Article 348(1): language in courts and legislative texts |
| Applies to | First 15 years after Constitution (i.e., till 1965) |
| Requires | Presidential sanction based on report under Article 344 |
| Purpose | To ensure deliberate, consultative language policy |
| Status | No longer in effect (ceased in 1965), but relevant for constitutional interpretation |
🕰️ Historical Relevance:
Valid from 1950 to 1965
Part of the transitional provisions to manage India's shift from English to Hindi in official use.
Helped avoid linguistic conflict during early years of the Republic.
📊 Summary Table:
| Article | Subject | Requirement |
|---|---|---|
| 348(1) | Language in Supreme Court, High Courts, and laws | English |
| 349 | Restriction on changing 348(1) language rules (till 1965) | Needs President’s sanction & Commission report |
| 344 | Commission on Official Language | Advises on Hindi adoption |
RELATED Blog
0 comments