Certainly. Here's a more detailed insight into the English Medium Students Parents Association vs State of Karnataka (1993) judgment, including:

• Key Challenges (Petitioners' Arguments)

• State's Response

• Supreme Court's Reasoning & Final Decision
  
  

⚖️ BACKGROUND:

The Karnataka Government, inspired by the Gokak Committee Report (1981), tried to strengthen Kannada's role in education by making it a compulsory subject and sole first language in secondary schools—even in private and minority-run schools. The 1982 and 1989 Government Orders laid down the Kannada-first policy across primary and secondary levels.

🆚 PETITIONERS' CHALLENGES:

1. Violation of Minority Rights (Articles 29 & 30):
   Minority institutions argued that forcing Kannada as the first language intruded on their right to conserve their own language and culture and to manage educational institutions freely.
   
   

2. Discrimination (Article 14):
   They claimed it discriminated against linguistic minorities by placing a heavier academic burden (three languages) and limiting choice compared to Kannada-speaking students.
   
   

3. Violation of Article 350A:
   Article 350A requires the state to facilitate instruction in the mother tongue for linguistic minorities—but this policy did the opposite by forcing Kannada.
   
   

4. Denial of Parental Choice & Child's Welfare (Directive Principles - Article 39(f)):
   Petitioners emphasized that parents must have the right to choose the language of instruction, especially at the foundational level.
   
   

5. Undue Burden on Young Children:
   Making Kannada compulsory from Class I or III, even in non-Kannada homes, was educationally unsound and burdensome.
   
   

🛡 STATE OF KARNATAKA'S RESPONSE:

1. Promoting the State Language is Legitimate:
   The state argued that promoting Kannada is essential for integration, especially since students study and live in Karnataka.
   
   

2. Revised Policy Removes Early Compulsion:
   The 1989 revised Government Order made Kannada optional in primary classes (Class I–IV), becoming mandatory only from Class V onward, thus respecting constitutional limitations.
   
   

3. Grace Marks and Exemptions:
   Non-Kannadiga students were given grace marks (up to 15) and some exemptions (e.g., for children of temporary residents), ensuring fairness.
   
   

4. No Violation of Fundamental Rights:
   The policy was regulatory and not oppressive, and the revised framework aligned with the Karnataka High Court’s earlier directions.
   
   

🧑‍⚖️ SUPREME COURT'S REASONING & DECISION:

1. Early Compulsion Struck Down:
   The court agreed with the Karnataka High Court that compulsory Kannada from Class I violated Articles 29, 30, and 14—harming linguistic minorities' rights.
   
   

2. But 1989 Policy Is Acceptable:
   The new GO of 1989 allowed:
   
   

   • Only one language till Class IV, with Kannada as an optional subject.
     
     

   • Three-language formula from Class VIII, with Kannada made mandatory only as one of the three languages, not necessarily the first.
     
     

   • This was held to be a reasonable balance between state interest and minority rights.
     
     

3. Article 350A Upheld:
   The revised policy did not prevent instruction in the mother tongue—in fact, it preserved that right while encouraging Kannada education in a phased and flexible manner.
   
   

4. Policy Is a State’s Prerogative:
   Language policy in education is a matter of educational policy, and the Court refused to interfere unless it clearly violated constitutional safeguards.
   
   

✅ FINAL VERDICT:

• The earlier 1982 orders making Kannada compulsory from Class I were unconstitutional.

• But the 1989 revised policy was constitutional, valid, and in compliance with minority rights.

• The writ petition and appeals were dismissed.
  
  

🧭 KEY INSIGHT:

The judgment became a landmark balance between regional language promotion and minority language rights. It clarified that a state can encourage its regional language but cannot force it on linguistic minorities at the primary level, especially in their own institutions.

Let me know if you’d like:

• A Kannada summary

• A simplified version for public awareness campaigns

• A comparison with recent judgments like NEP-related cases (2025)
  
  Also,
  
  🧑‍⚖️ Supreme Court Verdict on Linguistic Minorities in Maharashtra

In Usha Mehta v. State of Maharashtra (2004), the Supreme Court upheld the State Government’s decision to make Marathi a compulsory subject in all schools, including those run by Gujarati linguistic minorities. The petitioners had argued that this violated their fundamental rights under Articles 29 and 30, which protect minority communities’ rights to conserve their language and manage their own educational institutions.

However, the Court ruled that:

• Teaching the regional language (Marathi) is a reasonable regulation, not a violation.
  
  

• Article 30 does not grant minorities the right to avoid regional languages.
  
  

• Requiring students in Maharashtra to learn Marathi serves a legitimate public interest—it promotes social integration, smooth administration, and cultural inclusion.
  
  

• The minority’s right to teach Gujarati was not taken away; they could still teach it as a subject.
  
  

Ultimately, the Court held that living in a State comes with a responsibility to learn its language, and this policy does not destroy the minority character of the institution.