Find a Lawyer

Writ Petition No. 20 of 1957, decided on 13th February 1957.

Art. 19-Right to preserve sectional language-Cannot be invoked to compel University to change its medium of examination-Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 5, 13---Inapplicable.

Article 19 of the Constitution of Pakistan merely provides that any section of citizens having a distinct language shall have the right to preserve it. This article therefore could not be invoked in the present case, wherein, petitioners prayed for a writ directing the University of Karachi to make permanent provision for the Sindhi language as a medium for answering examination papers. It could not be contended that petitioners had been debarred from preserving their language.

Likewise, Articles 5 and 13 of the Constitution were inapplicable inasmuch as there was no discrimination against the Sindhi speaking students and there was no question of a denial of admission to the University.

Bhutto for Petitioners.

Faiyaz Ali, Attorney General and Nasiruddin for Respon dents,

-In 1950, the University of Sind first granted the facility of answering examination papers in Sindhi at various examinations of the University. In 1951, the University of Karachi continued this facility for one year and in 1952 when it was represented that discontinuance of this facility immediately would work hardship the University extended this facility up to the end of 1956. It was under stood that the facility would not be extended after 1956. In September 1956, Sindhi speaking students approached the Vice-Chancellor and he, according to the petitioners, was sympathetic to their request and said it would be reconsidered by the Syndicate. In October 1956, the Syndicate adhered to the previous resolution, namely, that Sindhi should no longer be means of answering examination papers.

The petitioners have come, praying for a writ directing the University of Karachi to make permanent provision for the Sindhi language as a medium for answering examination papers.

The petitioners admit that, so far as the University Act is concerned, it is within the powers of the Syndicate to decide what languages shall be used as means of answering examination papers. They say however, that their case falls within the sphere of Articles 5, 13 and 19 of the Constitution.

Article 19 merely provides that any section of citizens having a distinct language shall have the right to preserve it. No one can reasonably contend that in this case the petitioners have been debarred from the right of preserving their language. f Provision for the study of Sindhi is in fact made in the University.

Article 13 provides that no citizen shall be denied admis sion to any educational institution receiving aid from public revenues on the ground only of race, religion, caste or place of birth. Mr. Bhutto argues that because there are Sindhi teaching schools which do not give adequate instruction in English, his clients have been prejudiced by this denial of a right to answer university, examination papers in Sindhi. University requirements are thus such that persons knowing Sindhi cannot derive benefit from the University, and this is tantamount to denying them admission to the University.

We do not think that there is any force in this argument. According to this argument, any section of the community which has a separate language, would be entitled to claim that provision should be made for them to answer papers in their own language.

As regards Article 5, we do not see how there has been any discrimination against these Sindhi speaking students. The requirements of the University regarding answering examination papers either in English or in Urdu, seems to us perfectly reasonable.

We therefore, dismiss the application with costs.

A. H. Application dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.