Lakshadweep's ban on Mahal and Arabic in schools stayed by Kerala High Court amid cultural concerns
The division bench, chaired by Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Basant Balaji, stayed the administration's decision.
"The point emphasized by the Petitioner, which prima facie, we find merit in, is that for the implementation of the (National Education) Policy in a particular area, there has to be an application of mind and a study of local conditions to determine what is best for the educational interests of the community, in order to achieve the objectives of the Policy. The Policy itself contemplates such an application of mind, noting that various factors are involved in the said decision.
As contended by the learned counsel for the Petitioner, a language holds deep cultural significance, and any changes could have serious ramifications," said the Court.
The Court pointed out, "Ordinarily, the Court would not interfere in matters of education policy, particularly with respect to the selection of languages in the curriculum. However, this is self-restraint based on the premise that decisions relating to education policy are made by experts in the field after an in-depth study and wide consultation," added the Bench.
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
Classic Solitaire , Built for Desktop
Play Solitaire
Download
Undo
Incidentally, it was on May 14th, the Education Department of the Union Territory issued the order removing the two languages under the 2023 National Curriculum Framework (NCF), which is part of the 2020 National Education Policy (NEP).
According to the order, all schools in Minicoy island will offer Malayalam and English as the first and second languages, and Hindi will replace the local language Mahal and Arabic as the third language.
This led to widespread protests on the islands.
It was against this order that a public interest litigation (PIL) was filed by Ajas Akber, a social worker and President of the Lakshadweep Unit of the
National Students Union of India
.
The petitioner pointed out that Mahal is the exclusive language spoken by Minicoy islanders, and it symbolises their tradition and culture.
He went on to further point out that Mahal was being taught only in primary classes and was a foundation course to consolidate and uphold the tradition and culture of Minicoy, which happens to be a pure linguistic minority among the Union Territory.
Akber also pointed out that by removing the Mahal from the curriculum, the Lakshadweep administration has placed an open challenge to the constitutional rights of a minority community, which has distinct traditions and culture.
The Court, after hearing both parties, stayed the order for the pendency of the PIL and left it open to the Lakshadweep Administration to conduct appropriate studies on the issue.
"It is open to the Union Territory to conduct a study of the local conditions in the context of the prevailing Education Policies and to engage with all the stakeholders through a meaningful process of consultation (not merely for the purpose of record). If such studies and consultations are carried out, it will be open to the Respondents to apply for appropriate orders, and such application will be considered on its own merits," read the Court order.
Is your child ready for the careers of tomorrow? Enroll now and take advantage of our early bird offer! Spaces are limited.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
39 minutes ago
- Time of India
BMC निवडणुकीपूर्वी शिवसेना पक्ष, धनुष्यबाण परत मिळवण्याची तयारी; ठाकरे गटाची न्यायालयात मागणी
Shivsena Ubt Demands Court To Decide On Shiv Sena Party Name And Symbol Before Bmc Elections
India Gazette
an hour ago
- India Gazette
Delhi HC directs Centre to frame rules for mode-specific RTI information
New Delhi [India], July 2 (ANI): The Delhi High Court on Wednesday directed the relevant authority of the Union Government to take necessary steps and issue directions or frame rules to guarantee that information under the Right to Information Act, 2005, is provided in the format or mode requested by the applicant, while ensuring that appropriate safety measures are in place. Highlighting a gap in the current RTI Rules, a division bench of Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela stated that the need for providing information in the format sought by applicants--such as email or pen drives--while ensuring proper safeguards. The Court emphasised that existing rules do not account for present-day digital preferences, which can limit accessibility and defeat the spirit of the RTI Act, 2005. The judges instructed the appropriate authority to evaluate the issue and make a decision within three months. The directions came in response to a petition filed by two law students, who argued that RTI procedures continue to reference outdated formats, such as diskettes and floppies. They urged that information delivery should reflect current technology, including cloud platforms and secure email transfers. The plea also requested clear provisions for modern digital payment methods, such as UPI, net banking, and credit cards, to make the RTI process more user-friendly. Despite earlier representations made to the concerned ministries, no action had been taken, prompting the petitioners to approach the Court, stated the plea. The High Court concluded that framing updated rules is essential for ensuring the effective realisation of citizens' rights under the RTI Act in today's digital era. (ANI)
Indian Express
3 hours ago
- Indian Express
A censor board that fears the truth is not protecting culture, it is impoverishing it
Written by Kumar Kartikeya The Kerala High Court recently pulled up the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) for blocking the release of the film Janaki vs State of Kerala. By doing the same, it did more than merely resolve a regulatory delay; it exposed a constitutional fault line. The film had been reportedly withheld for over two months without any cogent justification. The CBFC had objected to the film's title, asking why it used the name Janaki which is mythologically associated with the goddess Sita, when the content dealt with a woman who was assaulted and took up a legal fight against the state. The court observed that merely naming a character Janaki does not amount to denigrating a deity, and sternly reminded the CBFC that its role is not to moralise or second-guess artistic choices. The controversy surrounding Janaki vs State of Kerala is just the tip of the iceberg in a broader and deepening crisis of censorship in India's film industry where constitutional limits are increasingly being replaced by cultural paranoia. The Janaki vs State of Kerala case joins a growing list of instances where the CBFC appears more committed to protecting majoritarian sentiments and political optics than upholding the right to free expression for artists. Films are being evaluated not on whether they meet statutory standards, but on whether they make some people uncomfortable. 'Cinema is the mirror of society,' Satyajit Ray once said, and like all good mirrors, it is bound to reflect blemishes, contradictions, and inconvenient truths. Today, that mirror is being compulsively polished by the censor board until only a flattering, sanitised reflection remains, or worse, one that serves an image of a certain ideology. The CBFC, once imagined as a certifying body, now functions less as a certifying authority and more as an ideological and moral censor. The CBFC draws its authority from the Cinematograph Act, 1952, which empowers it to certify films under categories like U, UA, A, and S. But in practice, this statutory role has mutated into an expansive censorship regime. The Board routinely demands edits, cuts, and modifications often based on vague standards and unwritten objections. This is a dangerous deviation from the law's original purpose. The CBFC's job is to classify content for viewer suitability, not to purge films of dissent, critique, or emotional complexity. In K A Abbas vs Union of India (1970), the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of film censorship, but made it clear that any restriction must be reasonable, necessary, and proportionate. In Shankarappa (2001), the Court warned that once an appellate authority clears a film, the government must step aside. Yet, indirect censorship continues through delays, opaque objections, and bureaucratic silence. If political sensitivities drive one half of censorship and moral anxieties drive the other, then cinema can never fully depict the realities of society. The CBFC routinely asks to blur, cut, or ban content based on what it vaguely deems to offend Indian culture. Films that challenge social conventions on gender, caste, sexuality, or religion often face disproportionate scrutiny. The refusal to clear Lipstick Under My Burkha in 2017 for being 'lady-oriented' was not an aberration but a pattern. The Bombay High Court rightly overruled the CBFC, but the message was clear: Films that challenge existing power structures will be made to wait, or worse, whittled down until they are safe to screen. Even the internet, once imagined as a free space for expression, is now being drawn into the censorship net. Over-the-top (OTT) platforms are subject to the Information Technology Rules, 2021, which require them to comply with an undefined code of ethics and a grievance redressal framework. But in a constitutional democracy, offence alone cannot justify suppression. Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution guarantees the right to freedom of speech and expression. While Article 19(2) allows reasonable restrictions, they must relate directly to public order, decency, morality, or the sovereignty of India not discomfort with truth or ideological deviation. Content that incites violence, promotes child abuse, or disrupts public peace can and should be regulated. But discomfort is not danger. And disagreement is not disloyalty. The CBFC's current approach creates a dangerous chilling effect. Filmmakers increasingly self-censor to avoid costly delays, negative publicity, or financial risk. Scripts are rewritten, themes diluted, and visuals edited — all before a single frame reaches the audience. The result is not safer cinema, but blander art. When the state decides what is acceptable, art loses its ability to challenge, provoke, or inspire. What remains is not a mirror of society but a projection of power. The CBFC requires major reform. Its mandate must be strictly limited to preventing content that violates constitutional thresholds such as incitement to violence, child pornography, or extreme obscenity. Nothing more. Most importantly, viewers must be respected as capable citizens, not children in need of protection from adult realities. In censoring the stories we tell, we distort the stories we live through. The CBFC's job is not to make reality palatable, but to let cinema reflect it, honestly and completely. The more we hide from truth in art, the less we recognise ourselves in society. Discomfort, in a democracy, is not a threat. It is a necessity. And a censor board that fears the truth is not protecting culture, it is impoverishing it. The writer is a lawyer and legal researcher based in Delhi
