Lawfully yours: By Retired Justice K Chandru | Court cannot push its ideas on State over six-decade two-language policy

The Supreme Court direction asking Tamil Nadu to identify land for Navodaya Vidyalayas leaves readers like me confused. The court emphasised cooperative federalism, but is federalism a one-way obligation for states? Under the three-language policy, do Navodaya schools in Hindi-ruled or other northern states actually offer Tamil as an optional, third or fourth language in practice? If reciprocal language learning is not genuinely happening elsewhere, why is Tamil Nadu accused of being non-cooperative for defending its two-language stance? Also, if the state government complies and identifies land now as directed, does it legally weaken our pending petition against the scheme itself, or is this land allocation purely a procedural step?

-- Kayal Vizhi T, Kilpauk

While the bench of Justice Nagarathna is telling the Tamil Nadu government to accept Navodaya Schools in Tamil Nadu, help procure land in each district, and accept Hindi as a third language, another bench of Justice Joymalya Bagchi is telling the CBSE to have three languages for Std VI next year, explaining that pushing the load on them will be difficult. How can two benches of the same court speak in different directions simultaneously?

Having a two-language policy has been the policy decision of successive state governments over the last six decades, and the court cannot push its ideas of what is good onto the government. Education is in the Concurrent List, and the state can decide what is good for it. Since under Article 1 India is a Union of States, sovereignty vests in the states also.

Many did not think of children's welfare while introducing Navodaya Schools, which offer residential education from classes 6 to 12. That means, at a young age, the child will be away from parents, which, at that impressionable age, is not good. From 12 to 18 years, the best place for a child is to be kept with parents. The judge, while advocating Hindi as a third language, did not consider the very idea of splitting the child from the family. The Minister has correctly asserted that it was a suggestion from the court and not a judgment, and the government will not give up its stance on its entry into Tamil Nadu.

Three-monthly power bill is illegal; aggrievese consumers can approach High Court

Electricity meter assessors in Madhavaram only visit homes bi-monthly to read meters and post bills. However, due to chronic short-staffing, there is currently an unexplained three-month delay. This lackadaisical approach comes at a dear cost to consumers, as delayed readings cause unit consumption to accumulate, pushing households into higher tariff slabs and resulting in arbitrarily inflated, fat bills. Despite large-scale community complaints, officials remain inaccessible, and the promised transition to smart meters remains only on paper. As a legal expert, could you please advise whether there is a regulatory provision to demand a pro-rata recalculation of bills so consumers aren't penalised for Tangedco’s administrative delays? Also, what statutory compensation can be claimed for failure to meet billing timelines under TNERC codes, and can one approach the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum (CGRF) to enforce accountability?

-- Girija Devi, Madhavaram, Chennai

While electricity consumers are demanding a monthly bill, Tangedco is giving bi-monthly bills, thereby making consumers pay more beyond the free supply limit. Giving a three-monthly bill is a clearly illegal action. Aggrieved persons can move the High Court for redressing their grievances. The jurisdiction of the consumer court at times may be doubtful because an element of free supply is involved.