Dr. M. K Sanoo & others 3rd Party Petitioners/Addl Respondents 3 to 5 & Respondents 1

REPLY AFFIDAVIT

1. Most of the arguments presented in the petition for impleading have already been mentioned in the counter petition filed on behalf of the State Government of Kerala. A detailed reply to the counter petition has already been given, with almost all the points covered.

2. So most of those points may not be repeated here to the extent possible. However, the petitioner needs to give in more detailed answers due to the fact that the third party respondents are from the scholastic world, with rights and claims to deep knowledge about languages and on Malayalam. The fact that they have formal qualifications that signify profundity in their field of study may lend an aura of authenticity to whatever they claim.

3. The issue at stake is a very important one. For, a verdict favouring either side can have far reaching affects on the destiny of the people here and on posterity. It is because of this reason that a very exhaustive scrutiny of the issue/s is being pleaded for by the petitioner. A lot of points brought up by the respondents need to be examined in minute detail for their genuineness.

4. The respondents have relied upon the Articles and 8th Schedule of the Constitution of India to support their contentions. A detailed answer to the same is given in item No: 52 of this reply affidavit. It may be mentioned in passing here that the State government has the powers to make rules on various things. However, the right of any citizen of India to request for a judicial scrutiny of any rule enacted by the State Government as to whether they are tenable as per the provisions and spirit of the Constitution of India is not disputable.

5. The spirit of the Constitution of India does extend beyond the exact word-meanings of the Constitution. The spirit of the Constitution of India is to create a Welfare State, wherein all citizens get the opportunity to develop their personality and individuality to their best possible potential. The state should not impose anything that shall selectively promote certain levels of people and enfeeble others. That is, things that are discriminatory. These ideas are there in the Directive Principle of State Policy (Article 36 to 51).

6. The Hon’ble High Court of Kerala has only taken up the contention that the issue of whether the studying individual may lose his or her right to opt out of learning a language which he or she has no inclination for. However, as both the first respondent as well as the second respondents has allowed themselves to discuss the other issues, the petitioner is impelled to give the raised points a required answer.

7. The first is the assertion that Malayalam is facing serious threat from various corners. Since the number of Malayalam speaking persons has increased exponentially over the decades since the formation of India, the petitioner is unable to understand what sort of threat the respondents are alluding to. They speak of some crises in Malayalam that might be causing cultural degradation in Malayalam; or else among the Malayalam speaking persons. It is not clear which or what they are pointing at.

8. If, indeed, there is such a crisis that is leading to cultural degradation, then it can be rectified by improving the quality and culture of Malayalam and the Malayalam-speaking-populace. How the same can be affected by making non-Malayalam speaking persons also to join the crisis is not clear.

9. As to economic repercussion that has been mentioned, it may be pointed out that Kerala is a state that enjoys financial prosperity due to the fabulous currency exchange rate discrepancy. For, many persons of Kerala nativity work abroad and send money home. Again it is seen that if the same persons do know good quality English, they stand at a greater advantage in the foreign lands. So connecting imposition of Malayalam here to economic prosperity is not tenable under logical thinking. In fact, the effect is the opposite of what is contended.

10. The term Mother tongue is seen mentioned. It only means the native language of the place of the nativity of the individual. This petitioner has already clarified in his reply to the first respondent (State Govt) the need to limiting the emotional sense the word ‘mother tongue’ creates in its mention. It has no connection to the term ‘maternal’ and ‘mother’, with the concept of ‘maternity’ or ‘motherhood’, and with breast milk and breastfeeding. The term Mother Tongue is being currently used to incite emotional connections and passions by connecting the powerful emotional strings connected to Mother, to that of language: Ammayanu, Amminhayanu, Amminhappaalaanu, Amrithaanu; Maathavaanu, Mathruthwamaanu Malayalam.

11. Beyond that the argument that what the mother talks has to be taught to the child is not a powerful one. For, in most households in current day Kerala, the majority of the womenfolk talk a comparatively lower quality Malayalam. This is mainly due to the social and familial conditioning. For example, this petitioner’s wife used to talk an interior village kind of Malabar Malayalam, which was far removed from the official version.

12. The respondents have argued for preserving the rich culture and heritage of the Malayalees. Here again there is need to differentiate between two words, which get continuously used as synonyms. The first is the term Malayalee. The other is the term Keraleeyan (Keralite). Usually there is no discrepancy in the sense. But then, in certain conditions there is an issue of lack of clarity or misunderstanding. For example, this petitioner’s own children who are unmistakably Keralites, do not know Malayalam at all. Terming them as Keralites would very sharply point to their nativity. However, calling them Malayalees would define them in a category that does not include them. This is mentioned just to bring in caution in using certain terms here without understanding their proper ambit. There is no intention on the part of the petitioner to act extremely pedantic or as an extraordinary person. Actually this issue would find much concurrence about defining many persons of Kerala-family linkage in many parts of the world. It is a strange observation that in almost all other states of India, the people there are defined with the language of the state. In the case of Kerala, there are two different words: Malayalee and Keraleeyan (Keralite). The petitioner does not know whether a Kannadiga is known as Karnatikan, a Maratha as a Maharashtriyan, a Bengali as a West Bengolian, a Tamilian as a Tamilnadian etc. in their native language. However, in English there used to be the use of two different words; such as Madrasi, Mysorian, Andhraite etc. Whether all this has any powerful codes or sense is not known. However, it is possible that the petitioner is not correct in this summarisation.

13. It is argued that the State Government of Kerala has every right to impose Malayalam in primary classes to preserve the rich culture and heritage of the Malayalees. Well, it could be a laudable aim, as mentioned by the respondents, if the target group is strictly limited to the acquiescing Malayalees (Malayalam speaking persons) and others who innately love Malayalam. Imposing Malayalam on others who are not inclined to speak or learn Malayalam more or less negates the commendableness of the spirited aim.

14. It may be noted that a language is not something that come along with one’s birth. It is more or less acquired through inputs that the individual receives mentally. It follows that Malayalam is not an innate feature of a person born in Kerala, like other innate features a person has. It has no more claims to impose itself on an individual than any other language, idea, philosophy, dressing standards, political philosophy and such.

15. To explain this more, let me say this: A person born in Kerala is trained by social conditioning to instinctively stand as a part of a clustering crowd for getting anything like a ticket, getting into a bus or train, standing at the bank teller counter etc. However, he or she can be mentally trained to understand that creating a queue is a better manner of performing the same action. Now, this second attitude is not a colloquial input. The other group cannot put up the argument that forming a queue is not part of our culture and thus should not be tried for or created. If such attitudes of intolerance are given statutory status, then there can be no social progress here. Languages are also something one learns from the local society, but then one need not necessarily follow what the local society tries to instil.

16. It is mentioned that the society has by and large welcomed the government order. However, the report made by the RVG Menon committee has alluded to the fact that the people of Kerala are stubbornly trying to put their children in English medium schools, whereby the Malayalam-promoting Government schools are heading for their demise. Since the respondents themselves have made such an inference, it may be correct to summarise that the common people at large are not quite amused by the government’s endeavours in this regard. Another summarisation could be that the whole campaign for imposing Malayalam on all and sundry has something to do with the vested interest of Government and Government-aided-school managements and their staff members, who may be desperate to save their institutions as people desperately try to get out of their clutches.

17. However, this contention would make it a necessity for the Hon’ble High Court to order the State Government to conduct a referendum so as to ascertain the exact wishes of the common man. Neither this petitioner nor the respondents can take up the stand that what they say is what the parents want. It has to be ascertained by means of a referendum.

18. This is being respectfully prayed for by the petitioner with regard to the need to educate the children of the common-man good quality English. Whether a person wants his or her children to learn Malayalam or not has nothing to do with this aim, and is unconnected to this issue.

19. It is mentioned by the respondents that Malayalam has a great legacy of art, culture and literature. The petitioner does not dispute the claims in this regard. However, that is not a logical reason to impose it on everyone.

20. Moreover, it needs mention that there were a number of mutually discordant dialects in the geographical area currently called Kerala. Many of them were simply made to vanish as the sole aim of the State Government was the promotion of the official version of Malayalam, which was actually the dialect of a particular part of South Kerala. Some of the other dialects were so different from this version that to even call them a dialect of Malayalam would have been equivalent to calling Kannada a dialect of Malayalam, by simply equating and making small changes to word sounds. However the petitioner can understand the compulsions that the State Government had in developing a standard Malayalam. The respondents have mentioned the threat of imminent death of this standardised Malayalam. The only issue here is that when the other dialects went in for their demise, no one felt any requirement to forestall the onslaught of the official version of Malayalam to save those dialects. For example, the dialects used by the tribal people are more or less getting erased from their own communication. It is only intelligent to bear in mind that if the same kind of financial and terminology inputs had been done on them also, the intellectual, literary and artistic legacy they all have would have come out. I mention this only to emphasis the point that such legacies cannot be used as a claim for imposing them on others.

21. A lot of modern technical terminology was mischievously inducted into Malayalam by simply creating new words by a Kerala State Language Laboratory. It may be mentioned that this type of adding to the literacy legacy of a language does not connect the process or the creation to any natural antiquity of the language.

22. Teaching such newly created words in all the sciences and art subjects was a very unnecessary thing. And also a real disturbance to the ordinary student. For many of them, when they went in for higher education in other states, had to unlearn and re-teach themselves the English equivalents of technical terminology. Moreover, all the Malayalam terminology that they had acquired over the years simply became redundant the moment they crossed the Kerala border. It may be remembered that the geographical space of Kerala is quite small. A person on the West side of Kerala at Calicut will be able to cross the East side border at Palghat (Valayaar) within a matter of 3 hours.

23. As to the students of the financially weaker classes, they were left with the burden of being under a layer of blocks to imbibing modern technical knowledge in its grand vastness. What they could get to imbibe was what came through translation versions, with the translators themselves becoming some sort of fountainheads of knowledge).

24. It is true that many states in India are trying this plan of bringing in division and fragmentation of modern knowledge by creating their own terminology in all subjects of study. It is only a mad scheme that need not be followed by Kerala also, without considering where all this will lead the whole nation to. In fact, when different people from different states move to other states, it literally becomes like moving to another nation. For each state is inflexibly promoting its own language.

25. The whole of such acrimonious issues spring up from a stubborn attitude to promote only what a small group of learned scholars, who unfortunately have a very inward looking global perspective, want. They take upon themselves to view all of the outside world (especially the English world) in a hostile manner. They incessantly try to put up defences and barricades where none are necessary. Moreover a false sense of insecurity of being overrun by outsiders is tried to be inculcated in the common man’s mind. It only leads to an unnecessary mood of belligerence, as if the whole of Kerala would be gobbled up by others.

26. There are claims elsewhere (not made directly by the respondents) that the Kerala youngsters are aping the West. The word West is not a synonym of English. For English culture and language are very much different from that of Continental Europe. Moreover, it is quite doubtful if the so-called West-aping youngsters do have any deep knowledge in English. It is wrong to identify such behaviour with English language and English systems. English systems are quite refined. And cannot be identified with the so-called Western culture of the Keralites.

27. Allusions have been made about the rich culture and heritage of Kerala. One can’t find objection to the spirit that promoted the adjective. However, the fact about Kerala-culture is that it was quite feudal. So feudal that, the serf-level person and family was totally subordinated to the will and wishes of the Janmi (feudal landlord) class. The powerfully crushing and subordinating local dialect pejorative words was the basic tool that was the main machinery that aided in supporting this social system.

28. The fact was that even women folk, including a man’s wife, sisters and daughters were all subject to the whims and fancies of the dominant class males. All art and cultural events that were conducted in the geographical area currently called Kerala, were more or less colluding with this social structuring. So, fanciful words that ennoble social systems and antiquity of doubtful quality cannot be accepted as legal arguments.

29. An understanding that the various places in current day Kerala had, in days of yore, very egalitarian and pro-people social systems is a very wrong one. Many Malayalam films have aided in creating this feeling of a grand and regal past. Yet, on close examination of these films, one can see the protagonist as a very superior person, who is always surrounded by a cluster of clowns, jesters, jokers and other persons of subordinate individuality. In all senses, these themes carry the essential understanding of a feudal (Janmi on top, kudiyaan at the bottom) social system.

30. In fact, in the many areas of Malabar and possibly Travancore, in the pre-British period, no group of lowly placed persons could go around with their wares for selling or even with their women beyond the tightly kept, small areas around their houses. Going beyond would surely spell disaster for them, for only persons and groups with prestige, and high class and caste status could move around securely. This petitioner has personally seen the vestiges of this vulnerability in interior areas many years ago. Even now, moving all round India, without proper connections in the administration/police can be dangerous, to a limited extend, to people who come from the low-income bracket.

31. The petitioner clearly understands that all these negative social features are not limited to Kerala alone, but could possibly be true of most places in India and possibly in many other nations also.

32. The petitioner has used the term feudal in the petition. This term has been used by the respondents also, to describe what the petitioner has mentioned about the quality of Malayalam. However, the petitioner wishes to make it clear that a better usage would be Janmi-kudiyaan social relationship. For, this social relationship is quite different from the Manorial system of feudalism that existed in Continental Europe and also from English-based feudalism in England.

33. The respondents claim that they are lovers of Malayalam who love their Mother Tongue. The petitioner wishes to place on record that he would support their claim to learn and propagate Malayalam by all means available. No one has a right to curtail that right of theirs. However, it is expected that they extend the same level of tolerance to others who have their infatuations on other languages. It is only correct to respect and tolerate other person’s rights that do not intrude into the private zone of others.

34. The petitioner is a person who is reasonably very good in Malayalam. He is not an outsider to the land. The good points in Malayalam are also known to him. In demeanour, looks and by domicile, he is a local man. He is neither an Englishman nor a foreigner to the land. He does write English annotations on Old Malayalam Film songs on the webpage:

35. However, he has noticed that Malayalam does discriminate. Discrimination goes against the spirit of the Constitution of India. What is required is to study this aspect, instead of ignoring it. If there is discrimination, then the flaw needs to be rectified.

36. The respondents are all persons of scholastic achievements in Malayalam study. However, it is quite surprising that they have not noticed any content of Janmi-kudiyaan social structuring in Malayalam or in other Indian vernaculars. Yet, what is more intriguing is that even after the issue has been pointed out, they still do not seem to see or sense it.

37. The issue is complicated. Yet, it can be simply conveyed by the idea that: Each of the words, Sar, Maadam/Medam, Thangal, NIngal, Nee (You) etc. and Sar, Maadam/Medam, Adheham, Avar, Avanmaar, Ayaal, Avattakal, Avan, Aval (He/She) etc. do have different affects on human psyche and social understanding. The petitioner cannot believe that persons of scholastic leanings cannot sense the possibility that discrimination, suppression, ennoblement, enslavement and inequality before law and administration can be caused by the selective usage of different words for different persons.

38. It has been mentioned that the petitioner’s contentions are liable to be rebutted by modern theories on languages. He can only say in reply that many English-based scholastic subjects, including that of psychiatry, psychology, political science and many others connected to human mind and social living are unable to clearly understand the variation and discrepancies that come into their contentions when taken into Asian hierarchical social communication environment.

39. The issue of feudalism in Malayalam is this: if the society wants a feudal structuring, then Malayalam can be very effective. However, in India, the Constitution does not support feudal structuring. So Malayalam more or less creates problems. For, different kinds of mutually competing hierarchies are created by different strings of relationships. It would be like: from a specific angle, one man is superior; and when viewed from another string of relationships, he would be the subordinate. It can create a mood of continual belligerence in the society, unless suppressed by draconian law enforcement.

40. The petitioner has noticed that any professional commercial vehicle driver, who is forced to wear a khaki uniform by law, is invariably addressed as Nee (Inhi in Malabar), and referred to as Avan (Oan in Malabar) by the police. Behaviour standards towards them by the police are in accordance to the social sense those words hold. Such words as Eda etc. are very powerfully used to subdue any innate human individuality and quality the person has. The argument that the drivers do not have complaints about this, are only similar to the fact that school students do not object to their teachers using such words about them and to them. For they have been indoctrinated with the understanding that this is the only possible communication code that can exist.

41. If the learned respondents do not acknowledge that there is discrimination in the varying manners of words used to different levels of people by the officialdom and the law enforcing machinery, one can only say that it is a great pity.

42. If the petitioner’s arguments seem quite new and confounding, it can only be said that just because of that they cannot be defined as untenable.

43. The petitioner is of the conviction that the Hon’ble High Court does have the obligation to order for an examination about points raised in the petition. The Hon’ble High Court of Kerala does statutorily hold unlimited judicial powers inside this state, and can rightfully take up the issues for judicial scrutiny.

44. It is true that some other states have imposed their state language on all who live within the state’s geographical area. The petitioner contends that just because another state has done a misdemeanour, it does not follow that Kerala should also commit the same transgression. Kerala can and should have the mental stamina to take a different stand. There is no need to follow the herd instinct. For Keralites do have claims to outstanding intellectual calibre. Let the State Government take a different stance, away from the nefarious claims of vested interests and show a new path.

45. The Constitution of India calls for the setting up of a Welfare State. That is what the State Government should be concerned about. Simply wasting time, energy and precious funds for promoting unwanted parochialism is not going make the state reach the realm of a Welfare State. What is required is quality improvement to the people here.

46. The petitioner admits that most of the contentions and counter contentions here do not fall purely within the ambit of jurisprudence. However there have been times when the Judiciary was called upon to make judgements in the realm of science and software, far removed from the core areas of judicial pursuits. I personally have seen a British judicial ruling done on a thing connected to the Software world. In a way the ruling was wrong. For only judicial points were discussed and made tenable. Yet, there was need to go beyond jurisprudence, and see how the software actually worked.

47. The petitioner also wishes to place on record that he is not a Marxist or a communist sympathiser. He does this because the Hon’ble Chief Justice had mentioned that the claims for an egalitarian language here is a sort of Marxist theme. It is possibly true. Yet, the paradox is that the local communist party is totally against the spread of English, and spiritedly supports a feudal language communication system.

48. The petitioner respectfully prays to the Hon’ble High Court that the issues need to be dealt with from all angles, including the issue of why the people are putting their children in private English medium schools. And also why the government is taking a rabidly opposite stance and forcing things that will negatively affect only the financially weaker sections.

49. It must be pointed out that that the respondents have simply avoided the core point admitted by the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala, viz. Whether the impugned order has the effect of absolutely eliminating any choice for a child or of his or her parents is the issue under judicial scrutiny. It is true that there are provisions in the Constitution of India that gives many powers to the State Government with regard to language and education. However, there are other more powerful dictums in the Constitution that strives to protect the innate rights of the individual, defined as the Fundamental Rights. If any Act or rule contravenes or infringes upon these rights, it can rightfully be questioned in an appropriate court of law. The government can breach these Fundamental Rights only if the security of the state is under threat. In this issue there is no issue of the security of the state being in danger.

50. Apart from all this is the issue of the petitioner’s children who have not learned Malayalam. It is based on the research findings that the petitioner has had. Now, if they are forced to learn Malayalam, they can escape from this draconian law only by moving out of Kerala. That in effect means that their right to stay in this place is infringed upon. In fact, many persons could be affected by such a rule. That is, they can escape this rule or law, by simply moving out of Kerala. That in effect, displays a very powerful stance of intolerance on the part of the State Government of Kerala. For, if such an eventuality were to be forced upon them, then it shall be a violation of the provisions of Article 19 (e) {Fundamental Rights}. This shall apply to any child who is thus forced to move out of Kerala for similar reasons.

51. The respondents are all profoundly learned persons. The petitioner has no intention of belittling them. Nor does he claim that they have any dubious intentions in their aim to promote Malayalam. He understands the emotional feeling that prompted them to come forward with their petition.

52. The petitioner wishes to discuss the legal and constitutional status of the inputs given by the respondents No: 2, for they have relied heavily on the Articles in the Constitution of India to support their contentions.

a. Malayalam is a language listed as item No: 11 in the 8th Schedule of the Constitution of India. Not disputed.

b. As per Article 345, the Legislature of the state has the right to adopt any language as the Official Language of the State. Not disputed.

c. Now, a reading of the Articles 343 to 350 as requested by the respondents and beyond to 351 shall not really highlight the point raised by the respondents that the spirit of the Articles here is to promote regional languages. The general spirit visible in these Articles is really to propagate Hindi; which this petitioner thinks is not what the respondents are pleading for.

d. Even if the contentions of the respondents that the State Government has every right to enforce a State Language as the official language of the state is true, there is Article 350A, which states thus: It shall be the endeavour of every State and of every local authority within the State to provide adequate facilities for instruction in the mother-tongue at the primary stage of education to children belonging to linguistic minority groups; and the President may issue such directions to any State as he considers necessary or proper for securing the provision of such facilities. If the respondents are quoting from the Constitution of India, then they shouldn’t have missed this. This Article more or less emphasises that primary education should be in the Mother Tongue of the child. Now, what is Mother Tongue is a debatable item, for in the case of this petitioner’s children’s case, their Mother’s language is an interior village, uneducated form of Malayalam. So, the term Mother Tongue needs to be properly defined. It may be mentioned in passing that the quality of a person’s speech, words, usages, tone and dialect is used as a measure of a person’s calibre and intellectual standards in social interactions.

e. Education comes under the Concurrent List. Well, that is agreed, for it definitely doesn’t come under the State List. As to its limitations mentioned in entries 63, 64, 65 and 66, they have relevance here to the extent that all the elite levels of educational institutions connected to scientific research, technical education, professional, vocational & police training, special studies, scientific detection of crime, and coordination in higher education, research, scientific and technical institutions are all under a national educational scheme. Here itself it is clear, that the children from the financially weaker sections would be at a disadvantage, if they are not provided good quality English education, and are compelled to learn all technical terminology in a regional language.

f. The only item connected to education specifically entrusted to the State as per the State List is Agricultural education (entry 14 of State List).

g. Since the issues have to be settled by the spirit and words of the Constitution of India, the petitioner insists that the provisions of Article 14 have to be examined thoroughly: The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.

h. Social inequality based on hierarchical codes and contents in Malayalam is a reality here. However, that is not a legal or statutory feature, and need not be discussed here. But the issue comes up when the official language, legal language, and language of administration start getting filled with hierarchical codes of inequality. For example, a person approaches someone like the Village Officer, Police Constable, a clerk in a Taluk office and such lower level government officials. He or she can be addressed and also referred to, by three levels of words and usages. Moreover, the words, he or she has to use to the officials are to be consistently of the obsequious, homage-bearing type, if he or she is a lower level person as per Malayalam usages. In which case, he or she automatically or spontaneously goes in for a submissive, low-personal dignity posture (as has been ingrained into him from his Malayalam school education). It is clearly seen that there is discrimination at the official level. However, if the language of administration is English, at least to some extent, this discrimination can be avoided. Using a language with hierarchical codes as the official, administrative and legal language can immediately involve the infringement of the safeguards mentioned in Article 14. Why nobody has not taken this up for legal action against the officials concerned is just because they are not fully aware of the egalitarian codes inside English and do not fully understand the wonderful spirit of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

i. Then we need to simply go through the Preamble of the Constitutions: JUSTICE, Social, ------; LIBERTY of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship (please note the word expression); EQUALITY of status and opportunity (please note the word status); FRATERNITY assuring the dignity of the individual ---- (please note the word dignity). Imposing a hierarchical coded, feudal (Janmi-kudiyaan relationship) language statutorily goes against the very preamble of the Constitution of India. Words that gnaw at the dignity of the individual should not be used. However, they are a natural part of Malayalam usages and are not considered as profanity or expletives.

j. Now we need to examine the word expression. For as per Article 19, the citizens of India have been given the Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression. Right to freedom of expression is just not a limited right that all persons domiciled in Kerala should do their verbal expressions and mental thought processes only in Malayalam. Moreover, in the Preamble of the Constitutions itself, it is clearly mentioned in golden words: WE, THE PEOPLE OF INDIA, having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a SOVEREIGN SOCIALIST SECULAR DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC and to secure to all its citizens: -------------- LIBERTY of thought, expression------------. Well, it may be construed that this liberty of expression can be extended to liberty to study and express his or her knowledge and learning in whatever language he or she desires. And also to refuse to learn and express in any language the person is not inclined to do so.

k. This petitioner would again quote Article 19 (e): to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India. If a person is compelled to teach his children what he or she does not desire the child to learn, then he or she may be compelled to move out of the state. The issue is not like moving out of a nation, but something more parochial. This goes against the provisions of Article 19 (e), for it is connected to a person’s right to reside anywhere inside India, and not about moving out of India.

l. Last, the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala has taken up the issue of whether the right of the Child or of his or her parents to opt out of learning a language has been infringed. This petitioner contends that it has been infringed upon. For, it goes against the words and spirit of Article 19 of the Constitution of India; specifically Article 19 (a).

m. It is stressed that even though the State Legislature has powers to make rules, those rules and Acts should pass the test of whether they are compatible with the spirit of the Fundamental Rights. If they go against the Fundamental Rights, they are null and void. For, Fundamental Rights are enshrined in our Constitutions to bridle State Legislatures from running amok, impelled by emotional fervours of parochial political pragmatism.

n. Now, let this petitioner call the attention of the Hon’ble High Court to the Directive Principles of State Policy of our Constitution.

1. Article 38 (2): The State shall, -------------- endeavour to eliminate inequalities in status, facilities and opportunities, not only amongst individuals but also amongst groups of people residing in different areas or engaged in different vocations. {Malayalam does view different vocations with different social levels and status).

2. Article 39A: The State shall secure that the operation of the legal system promotes justice, on a basis of equal opportunity, and shall, ------------------ensure that opportunities for securing justice are not denied to any citizen by reason of economic or other disabilities.

3. Article 46: The State shall promote with special care the educational and economic interests of the weaker sections of the people, and, in particular, of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes, and shall protect them from social injustice and all forms of exploitation. The petitioner has pointed out in his findings presented before the Hon’ble High Court: Social classes that have been amalgamated into the Indian nation such as the Adivasis, have been despoiled, since even their clan chieftains have been degraded by the use of lower grade words by even the government peons and policemen of shipai rank, apart from all other officials.