Sanskrit As National Language? SC Dismisses Petition On These Arguments

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking Sanskrit to be declared as national language.

The apex court remarked that giving a language ‘national’ status is a policy decision. It requires amendment to the Constitution, and can’t be ordered by the court.

“This lies in the realm of policy decision and even for the aforesaid, Constitution of India is to be amended. No writ can be issued to Parliament for declaring a language as a national language,” a bench of justices MR Shah and Krishna Murari said.

“How many cities in India speak Sanskrit? This is a policy decision. We cannot issue a writ to the Centre to take a particular policy decision,” the Supreme Court bench said while hearing a PIL filed by DG Vanzara, a retired bureaucrat and a lawyer.

Vanzara stated in his petition a discussion on this matter by the Centre and a nudge by the court can go a long way to promote that at the government level.

“Do you speak Sanskrit? Can you recite one line in Sanskrit or at least translate the prayer in your writ petition to Sanskrit,” the bench asked the petitioner on a lighter vein.

As Vanzara shared a Sanskrit shloka, the bench replied, “This we all know.”

Vanzara quoted a former judge of the erstwhile Supreme Court of Calcutta during the British Raj when Sir William Jones commented that out of the 22 languages he studied, Sanskrit was clearly the mother language. “We share that view. We know that several words in Hindi and other state languages have come from Sanskrit. But this cannot be the ground to declare the language as a national language. For us to declare a language is very difficult.”

The petitioner argued that under Article 32, the top court has got ample scope and a beginning could be made in this direction by seeking the Centre’s view on this issue. “This debate has to happen in Parliament,” the bench replied.

Dismissing the plea, the bench added that if the petitioner is so advised to move a representation, he may be at liberty to file such a representation before the government.