top of page

By:

Minal Sancheti

2 May 2026 at 12:26:53 pm

HC allows student to give exam

Mumbai: The Bombay High Court recently intervened in the attendance issue of the Indian Law Society's College Pune after the petitioner, Nisarga Khanderao, a student of the college filed a case against the institute. She was not allowed to appear for the examination because of the low percentage of attendance. The student had 53 per cent attendance and the college’s rule of minimum percent was 50. Khanderao’s per centage of attendance surpassed the minimum per centage of attendance decided by...

HC allows student to give exam

Mumbai: The Bombay High Court recently intervened in the attendance issue of the Indian Law Society's College Pune after the petitioner, Nisarga Khanderao, a student of the college filed a case against the institute. She was not allowed to appear for the examination because of the low percentage of attendance. The student had 53 per cent attendance and the college’s rule of minimum percent was 50. Khanderao’s per centage of attendance surpassed the minimum per centage of attendance decided by the college for its students. The case was filed against the institution by the student and the Bombay High Court passed the judgement in her favour, allowing her to give the exam. The judgment was passed on May 18 and the exam was on May 19. The student who was also the petitioner was in the Five-Year B.B.A. LL.B. course and the exam was conducted by the college. The ILS College counsel S. S. Kanetkar opposed the petitioner saying that the student had approached the HC belatedly, particularly when the action was taken on April 20 and the examinations were already underway. However, it is brought to notice that the court, by orders dated May 4 in a Writ Petition and connected matters, permitted similarly situated students to appear for the examinations, subject to the outcome of the petitions, taking into consideration that their attendance was above 50 per cent. The bench of Justice Sandesh Patil and Gautam Ankhad said in their orders that the petitioner also claims to satisfy the minimum threshold of 50 per cent attendance. “We are prima facie of the view that limited interim protection deserves to be granted so as to avoid irreversible academic prejudice at this stage,” the bench said. The student was permitted to appear for the remaining examinations. However, such permission shall be purely provisional and is subject to the final outcome of the present writ petition. “The student’s name was listed in the defaulter’s list. We had challenged that decision,” said her lawyer Uday Warunjikar.

Lingua Pragmatica

Updated: Mar 20, 2025

As Southern leaders like M.K. Stalin rage against Hindi, Andhra Pradesh’s Chief Minister Chandrababu Naidu offers a model of pragmatism over parochialism.

Chandrababu Naidu
Andhra Pradesh

Amid the cacophony of opposition in southern states to Hindi, Andhra Pradesh CM N. Chandrababu Naidu has taken a markedly pragmatic stance by remarking recently in the state Assembly that there was no harm in learning other languages. Hindi, Naidu noted, was useful for communication across India, particularly in political and commercial hubs like Delhi. His remarks, though avoiding explicit mention of the NEP, were widely seen as an endorsement of multilingualism and a rebuke to the linguistic chauvinism that has gripped parts of the South.


Few issues in India stir political passions quite like language. It is not merely a means of communication but a marker of identity, a relic of colonial resistance, and a source of political mobilization. In the southern states, where anti-Hindi sentiment has long been entrenched, the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 and its three-language formula have reignited old tensions. No state embodies this defiance more than Tamil Nadu, where the ruling Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) led by M.K. Stalin has framed the policy as an assault on its linguistic autonomy.


Naidu’s words, welcomed by his ally and Deputy Chief Minister Pawan Kalyan, mark a sharp contrast with the DMK’s position. Tamil Nadu’s hostility towards Hindi dates back to the 1930s, when C. Rajagopalachari’s attempt to introduce it in schools met with fierce resistance. The anti-Hindi agitations of the 1960s cemented the DMK’s ideological stance, with its first Chief Minister, C.N. Annadurai, famously warning that Hindi imposition could push Tamil Nadu towards secession.


The question, however, is whether this rigid opposition serves Tamil Nadu’s interests. While Stalin, with an eye to the upcoming Tamil Nadu Assembly polls, has been relentlessly portraying Hindi as a threat to his state’s regional identity, Naidu, a partner of the BJP-led Centre, is framing it as a tool for economic mobility. His argument is not that Hindi should replace Telugu or English but that it offers a competitive advantage.


The economic case for multilingualism is compelling. Indians who speak multiple languages tend to have better job prospects, higher earnings and greater geographic mobility. Andhra Pradesh’s Telugu-speaking diaspora is a case in point. Telugus make up a significant proportion of Indian-origin professionals in the United States, the Gulf, and Southeast Asia as Naidu pointed out, hinting that this success story was built not on linguistic rigidity but on adaptability.


In a country where inter-state migration is rising and where Hindi remains the most widely spoken language, refusing to learn it amounts to self-imposed isolation. Tamil Nadu’s approach, by contrast, risks limiting its youth. The DMK government has refused to implement the three-language policy, keeping schools strictly bilingual with Tamil and English. Its justification that Hindi is not necessary for global success could be true in a narrow sense but ignores the domestic context. If Tamil filmmakers can dub their movies into Hindi to expand their audience, why should Tamil students be denied access to the language that could open more doors for them within India?


The DMK has accused successive central governments, particularly under the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), of pushing Hindi at the expense of regional languages. Yet, rejecting Hindi outright is an overcorrection. The reality is that Hindi is an important language in India’s economic and political landscape. Naidu’s position, one of accommodation rather than confrontation, offers a middle ground that other Southern leaders would do well to consider.


Some states already recognize this. Karnataka, despite its own history of linguistic pride, has allowed Hindi to be taught as an optional language. Kerala, whose migrants work in Hindi-speaking regions and the Gulf, has been less hostile to Hindi education. Naidu’s model, balancing regional identity with practical necessity, offers a way forward. Languages should be embraced, not politicized. Southern leaders would do well to listen to him.

Comments

bottom of page