ORDER
1. The petitioner represents the Diocese of Mysore of the Roman Catholic Church. The grievance of the petitioner lies in a narrow compass. The Diocese of Mysore comprises of Tamilians, Kannadigas, Konkanis, Malayalees, Telugu and Anglo Indians. The Kannada speaking Catholic Christians are alleged to be 30%. The rest of them are people speaking other languages. The petitioner has established several educational institutions where education is imparted in Kannada language. The pre-
sent provocation to move this writ petition is that there was a request made by a section of people speaking Kannada that the religious ceremonies in the Church should be performed in Kannada in preference to other languages. It was also requested that the board etc., put up in the Church, be displayed in Kannada. This cause, it was felt was not legitimate, in the circumstance that in the matter of religious ceremonies etc., it is not that the language that should matter to the people. An attempt was made for demonstration etc., by a group to prevent the religious discourse being held in the language other than Kannada. A civil suit, therefore, was filed as O.S. No. 471 of 1997 before the local Court and an interim injunction has been obtained against the warring groups who started to fight for the prominence of each language either Kannada or Tamil. At this stage, Annexure-E notice was issued by the Kannada Development Authority, calling upon the petitioner to attend a meeting being held at Vidhana Soudha in Room No. 313 for resolution of the dispute regarding the language being used for purpose of conducting the religious ceremonies. Annexure-E notice stated as follows:
2. Preceding this notice, in an interview given by the Chairman of the
Kannada Development Authority, he had stated as hereunder:
“Patil for Church mass in Kannada
By our Staff Reporter Bangalore, June 23
Kannada Development Authority (KDA) Chairman Prof. Chandrashekar Patil has every body believe that sky is literally the limit for his authority.
When Prof. Patil told a press conference today that he was convening a consultative meeting on July 9, to discuss the Kannada Catholic Sangha’s demand for conducting church mass in Kannada instead of Tamil, reporters could not help but question whether organising such meetings came within the KDA’s purview.
Unfazed, Prof. Patil pointed to the map of Karnataka and replied “Everything under the sky and above the ground in Karnataka” fell within the KDA’s ambit.
“If you set out making a list of subjects which do not come within our purview, you will not get many”, he told reporters.
Prof. Patil said the consultative meeting organised by the KDA, on July 9 will be attended among others by Kannada Shakti Kendra President M. Chidananda Murthy, Advocate C. H. Hanumantharaya, folklorist Go. Ru. Channabasappa”,
This is the report that appeared in the Newspaper “Deccan Herald” dated June 24, 1997.
3. This gave rise to genuine apprehension in the mind of the petitioner to the effect that the Rannada Development Authority, who is impleaded as 2nd respondent herein, may interfere in the religious activities of the petitioner and would cause other difficulties. It was in these circumstances that the above writ petition was moved before this Court for appropriate relief.
4. When the matter came up for preliminary hearing on 7-7-1997, this Court indicated that the petitioner is not bound to attend the meeting to be held on 9-7-1997. Subsequently, a statement of objections has been filed by the respondents wherein they state that the attempt being made by the 2nd respondent was in the nature of conciliation and not for purposes of enforcing any right. In the statement of objections filed by the respondents on 25-7-1997, it is stated as hereunder:
“. .The meeting proposed was only to see that both the factions can give their healthy suggestions with regard to the problems they are facing and if possible, try to bring about an amicable settlement. Except this in mind, neither the second respondent nor the first respondent has interfered with any of the religious sentiments of the Diocese of Mysore or have violated the fundamental rights of the petitioner guaranteed under Articles 25(1) and 26(b) of the Constitution of India. The second respondent respectfully submits that at no point of time, it has interfered itself in any of the religious matters of the petitioner. The petitioner is trying to lead a situation which is not in existence at all”.
5. As the Chairman of the 2nd respondent who has given Press statement, did not file any affidavit, the matter was adjourned. Accordingly, an affidavit has been filed by the 2nd respondent-Chairman wherein he
has stated as follows:
“2. The statement of objection on behalf of the second respondent has already been filed before this Hon’ble Court and the same may please be read as part and parcel of this affidavit in order to avoid repetition. As regards the paper statement made by me at Mysore (which is published in the issue dated 24-6-1997 of Deccan Herald newspaper) is concerned, I submit that when the Press reporters asked me certain questions, I went on answering them. When one
of the reporters asked me the question what is the purview of the
Kannada Development Authority, I said that as far as the operation of the Kannada Development Authority Act is concerned, in a
lighter vein I did say that everything under the sky and above the
ground in Karnataka fall within the Karnataka Development
Authority’s ambit. But, it was not my intention to say that the
Kannada Development Authority can have its jurisdiction over
each and every matter in Karnataka. It is only the implementation of the Act which was in my mind while I gave the replies to
the queries made by the reporters. It is not even my intention to
give such a statement having regard to the dispute between the
Kannada Christians and Tamil Christians belongs to the Diocese
of Mysore Roman Catholic Church”.
6. In the light of this statement, it is not necessary for this Court to go further into the various questions raised. But all the same it is to be clarified that it is desirable that the deponent in his enthusiasm to discharge his function as the Chairman of the Kannada Development Authority should not make provocative statement. The 2nd respondent has been constituted under the Kannada Development Act. The function of the authority for which the 2nd respondent has been constituted is as envisaged in Section 15 of the Act. No doubt, it has very wide power which in essence is for implementation of Dr. Sarojini Mahishi report as approved by the State Government. It has also powers as detailed in the said section which reads as follows:
“15. Functions of the Authority. –
The Authority shall. –
(a) review the actions taken by the different departments, public undertakings, all institutions and local bodies and institutions receiving grants by the State Government in the implementation of official language policy of the State Government;
(b) suggest measures to the State Government for the effective implementation of the recommendations of Dr. Sarojini Mahishi Report as approved by the State Government;
(c) identify the hurdles in the implementation of Kannada as the administrative language and to take suitable measures to solve them;
(d) review from time to time the system of Kannada Examinations (Service Examination), Examinations conducted for testing the knowledge of Kannada along with the relevant syllabus existing or that may be prepared and if necessary suggest the Government to revise, modify or renew the same, to conduct study and consultations regarding the manufacture, purchase and distribution of Kannada typewriters, the use of Kannada in modern equipments like computers, teleprinters, telex which are used in the modernisation of offices and in this connection to take decisions that would promote extensive use of Kannada and to take necessary actions to get it implemented;
(e) arrange training programmes, workshops, exhibitions and seminars which would facilitate the use of Kannada for officers and officials and Kannada teaching course for non-Kannadigas and to prepare the necessary syllabus and literature;
(f) publish, purchase and distribute useful publications relating to the development of Kannada;
(g) ensure all the forms used in the offices are printed in Kannada and to examine and grant permission for the printing of forms, publications and registers which are required to be in languages other than Kannada;
(h) examine whether the regional language is being used in the forms, notices and name plates that are in day to day use in accordance with the language policy of the Central Government in the offices of the Central Government, Banks, Post Offices and in other offices and undertakings which have more public contacts in the State and to conduct correspondence with those offices in this connection;
(i) take decisions on the matters of preparation, revision, printing and distribution of reference books on administration and to implement the same and to monitor the progress in this field and suggest necessary measures;
(j) examine the standards of Kannada text books and give instructions to rectify the mistakes if any, in these books”.
7. But a perusal of the provisions of the Act SHOWS that the 2nd respondent is not conferred with police power to implement the objects made mention of in Section 15 of the Act. Hence, every effort should be taken by the 2nd respondent to effect a smooth transition which will not cause undue heart burning to all concerned. The revision makes it abundantly clear that the transition of the language should be mooth and should not be compulsory. The 2nd respondent should keep in mind that any compulsion on enforcing of any language will only lead to untoward incidents. History has shown that whenever there had been an attempt by one to enforce its will and view on any other unwilling partners, the same bad met with very unhappy consequences. This is especially so when such issues have religious factors as well involved. A section of the church is conducting prayers in a particular language. There may be another section who are interested in some other language. That does not mean that the existing language should be changed to accommodate the other language. A parallel service could be used for the people speaking other languages. In such matters it is always better that the Chairman of the 2nd respondent abstain from interfering. Not only it will be adverse to the interest of all concerned, but also it will be inviting further complications. A mixture of language and religion is a dangerous and explosive combination. The Chairman of the 2nd respondent should do well not to mix up these issues and create any volatile situation. The Church should be allowed to be in the control of the situation unless of course, the issue gives rise to law and order situation;
in such situation, it is the authority responsible to maintain the law and order situation and not the Chairman of the 2nd respondent who should get involved to abate the law and order situation.
8. Besides, it is essential that the Chairman of the 2nd respondent should abstain from making provocative statement to the Press. When once the matter is allowed to appear in the Press in the fashion now referred to above, it does not serve any purpose by retracting from the statement or softening the seriousness of the statements by a further statement- If, as a matter of fact, the Chairman of the 2nd respondent has not made any statement as made out by the Press, then he should come forward at once and explain his position rather than waiting till the matter comes upto this Court. The Chairman of the 2nd respondent should have, realised the far reaching effect such statement would have in a delicate issue as the one, the Chairman of the 2nd respondent was handling. In such a situation, it was best that responsible men like the Chairman of the 2nd respondent-Authority avoids making any such statement even if it be in a lighter vein. These are all serious matters which should have been borne in mind by a responsible Officer like the Chairman of the 2nd respondent. In view of the circumstance that the Chairman of the 2nd respondent has resiled from the alleged statement and the same has come on record, I do not think any further direction is called for in this matter. Recording the statement made by the respondent, the writ petition is disposed of.