The Linguistic Cold War: State‑Level Legal Battles over Language Rights in India

Authored By: Nitu Kumari

IIMT COLLEGE OF LAW, GREATER NOIDA

Introduction

India’s constitutional framework is a tapestry of linguistic pluralism, balancing unity and diversity through nuanced grants of autonomy. Yet beneath this fabric, a subtle and persistent tension simmers—a “Linguistic Cold War”—where states and minority communities legally contest language usage in education, administration, and justice. Across India’s federated landscape, these battles unfold in courtrooms and legislatures, challenging the dominance of majority languages and seeking recognition for linguistic minorities. This article maps these legal skirmishes and explores how constitutional provisions and judicial interpretations shape outcomes.

Constitutional Foundations and State Autonomy

The Indian Constitution embeds a rich architecture of language protections:

Article 345 permits each State Legislature to adopt one or more languages “in use in the State” or Hindi for official purposes, while allowing continued use of English until the State passes a law otherwise
Article 348 mandates that all Supreme Court and High Court proceedings, and authoritative legal texts, remain in English unless Parliament provides otherwise 
Article 350A binds States and local authorities to ensure “adequate facilities for instruction in the mother‑tongue at the primary stage” for linguistic minority children 
Articles 29(1) and 30(1) protect cultural and educational rights, enabling communities with distinct languages to conserve heritage and establish educational institutions

This trio forms the legal front in the Linguistic Cold War authorizing State-level language policy, securing minority education, and mandating English in high-stakes legal domains.

Educational Frontlines: Mother‑Tongue Instruction

The battleground in education sees minorities challenge majoritarian language mandates:
In State of Karnataka v Associated Management of English Medium Primary & Secondary Schools, the Supreme Court stressed that under Article 350A, States must provide resources for mother‑tongue instruction in primary school, and minority communities retain the right to choose the language of instruction (Harmonising Constitutional Vision and Judicial Realities: Upholding Rights of Linguistic Minorities | SCC Times). The Court underscored that forcing a uniform language erodes linguistic identity—particularly among indigenous groups, such as the Gonds and Santals, whose languages, like Gondi and Chiki, are gradually vanishing due to a lack of educational support.

Judicial Language: Access vs Uniformity

Language in judiciary settings lies at the heart of accessibility:

Though English remains the compulsory language for Supreme Court and High Court proceedings, Article 348(2) allows Governors—with Presidential consent—to authorize regional languages in High Courts. However, this does not extend to judgments, which must still be in English (Use of Hindi and regional languages | Department of Justice | India)

Only four High Courts—Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, and Bihar—currently have permission to use Hindi in proceedings. Proposals from other States such as Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, West Bengal, Gujarat, and Chhattisgarh have been considered but repeatedly declined by the Supreme Court’s Full Court.

Critics argue this English dominance places ordinary litigants at a disadvantage. As Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud noted, many citizens cannot meaningfully participate in proceedings conducted in English. Advocates for regional usage argue that ensuring justice in a language understood by the litigant aligns with Article 21’s guarantee of timely and accessible legal remedy.

Minority Recognition: Judicial Orders and the Language Map

States’ recognition of minority communities often hinges on judicial assistance:

In Chhattisgarh, the High Court ordered state authorities to consider a plea to recognise Marathi-speaking people as a linguistic minority under Articles 29, 30, and 350A. The petitioner invoked TMA Pai Foundation, which asserted minority status must be adjudged at the state, not national, level (HC to govt: Consider plea to notify Marathi-speaking community as linguistic minority in state | Raipur News – Times of India)

Meanwhile, language politics fostered by the Official Languages Act, 1963 institutionalise bilingualism in India. While Hindi was intended to replace English, resistance from non-Hindi states led to amendments ensuring English continues indefinitely (Official Languages Act, 1963 – Wikipedia)

Furthermore, the Eighth Schedule, now listing 22 recognised languages, remains subject to expansion—many demand inclusion of regional tongues like Bhojpuri, Garhwali, Rajasthani, and Gondi for cultural preservation and administrative recognition (Eighth Schedule to the Constitution of India – Wikipedia)

Case Study: Lakshadweep School Language Policy

A recent illustration of the Linguistic Cold War unfolded in Lakshadweep, a Union Territory. The administration attempted to remove Arabic and Mahl from the school curriculum in favor of enforcing the three‑language formula. The Kerala High Court issued an interim stay, citing the lack of stakeholder engagement and the cultural importance of these languages, holding that such policy shifts require formal processes, not mere administrative orders (Kerala HC extends interim stay on Lakshadweep language order | Kochi News – Times of India)

This episode underscores that language policy is deeply political and cultural—requiring sensitivity, legitimacy, and judicial scrutiny, rather than bureaucratic fiat.

Conclusion: Towards Equitable Multilingualism

India’s legal landscape reflects a profound and ongoing contest—not of arms, but of language rights. State legislatures, courts, and minority groups engage in a sustained, quietly combative struggle each side asserting constitutional rights and identity. This Linguistic Cold War is not about dominance, but about inclusivity, identity, and justice.

For India to move towards equitable multilingualism, it must empower minority education, liberalize judicial language norms, and expand recognition to regional languages through democratic processes and constitutional fidelity.

Reference(S): (OSCOLA Style)