Recently, there was a demand to include the Tulu language in the official languages list. With reference to this, consider the following statements:

1. Originally, the eighth schedule of the Indian Constitution contained 14 languages.

2. The Constitution of India does not have any fixed criteria for the inclusion of more languages in the eighth schedule.

3. The Supreme Court can direct to the Centre for the recognition of a language as an official language.

How many of the above statements are correct?

Correct option is B

• ​However, there are no fixed criteria for the consideration of any language for inclusion in the Eighth Schedule to the Constitution. Neither does the Constitution provide for the criteria. The attempt to fix such criteria through the Sitakant Mohapatra Committee has been inconclusive. Hence, statement 2 is correct.

• At present, the Eighth Schedule of the Constitution specifies 22 languages (originally 14 languages). These are Assamese, Bengali, Bodo, Dogri (Dongri), Gujarati, Hindi, Kannada, Kashmiri, Konkani, Mathili (Maithili), Malayalam, Manipuri, Marathi, Nepali, Odia, Punjabi, Sanskrit, Santhali, Sindhi, Tamil, Telugu, and Urdu. Sindhi was added by the 21st Amendment Act of 1967; Konkani, Manipuri, and Nepali were added by the 71st Amendment Act of 1992; and Bodo, Dongri, Maithili, and Santhali were added by the 92nd Amendment Act of 2003. Hence, statement 1 is correct.

• In 2004, the Government of India decided to create a new category of languages called as “classical languages”. In 2006, it laid down the criteria for conferring the classical language status. So far, the six languages are granted classical language status. They are Tamil, Sanskrit, Telugu, Kannada, Malayalam, and Odia. There is no provision for a language to be recognized as a classical language in order to be in the eighth schedule. 

• Recently, the Supreme Court on July 21 said it cannot direct the Centre to include Rajasthani as an official language in the Eighth Schedule of the Constitution. A Bench headed by Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud said the subject of the petition concerns a policy matter. The court referred to a 1997 reported decision of the Supreme Court in the Kanhaiya Lal Sethia case to note that “to include or not to include a particular language in the Eighth Schedule is a policy matter of the Union. Generally speaking, the courts do not, in the exercise of their power of judicial review, interfere in policy matters of the State, unless the policy so formulated either violates the mandate of the Constitution or any statutory provision or is otherwise actuated by mala fides. No such infirmity is present in the instant case”. Hence, statement 3 is not correct.

​​