Compulsory singing of Vande Mataram: Madras HC reverses its order, says it’s up to TN govt to take a decision

Sureshkumar| TNN | Updated: Nov 9, 2017, 19:31 IST


HIGHLIGHTS

A single judge of the high court had made singing of Vande Mataram compulsory in schools and other establishments in TN

Now,a division bench of justices Huluvadi G Ramesh and R M T Teekaaa Raman has reversed the order.

The division bench has said it is up to the state govt to take a decision on the matter

)

CHENNAI: Three months after a single judge of the Madras high court made singing of Vande Mataram compulsory in schools, government offices, private entities and industries in Tamil Nadu, a division bench of the court has modified the order and said it is up to the state to take a decision on the issue.

"As regards the order of the single judge, which mention about singing of Vande Mataram compulsorily in educational institutions, government offices and private companies, we are of the view that since it is a policy decision to be taken by the state, in modification of the order, we leave it to the discretion of the government to take decision on the matter," a division bench of justices Huluvadi G Ramesh and R M T Teekaaa Raman said.

The issue pertains to a plea moved by K Veeramani, who failed to clear the written test for the post of teacher (teacher eligibility test or TET) as he answered that Vande Mataram was written in Bengali.

After concluding that the song was originally written in Bengali and later translated into Sanskrit, Justice M V Muralidharan directed the Teachers Recruitment Board (TRB) to award one mark to the petitioner and to provide suitable appointment to him.

Assailing the order, TRB preferred an appeal. Allowing the appeal partially, the division bench said, "We are of the opinion that the manner in which the marks were awarded to the candidates, who participated in the TET and the selection process fall under the administrative domain of the government. It is well settled that the courts should not ordinarily interfere in the policy decision of the government, unless there is clear violation of some constitutional provision or the statute. We find no such violation in the case at hand."

"We leave it open to the board to deal with the case of the petitioner, after awarding one mark, on merits and in accordance with law. Consequently, the single order is set aside, insofar as it relates to directing the TRB to accommodate the petitioner in any suitable vacancy," the court said.