Constitution of India
Article 345: Official language or languages of a State
Part XVII — Official Language (Chapter II — Regional Languages)
Article 345 — Main Provision
WHAT IT SAYS: 1. Subject to Articles 346 and 347, the State Legislature may by law adopt any one or more languages in use in the State, or Hindi, as the official language(s) for all or any official purposes of that State. WHAT IT MEANS: 1. State Legislatures have autonomous power to choose their official language(s). 2. The language chosen need NOT be from the Eighth Schedule — any language 'in use' in the State qualifies. 3. Hindi can be adopted even if not 'in use' in the State — the word 'or' before Hindi dispenses with the 'in use' requirement for Hindi. 4. A State can adopt MORE THAN ONE official language. 5. Power under Article 345 is NOT exhausted after one use — it can be exercised from time to time. 6. This power is subject to Articles 346 (inter-State communication) and 347 (Presidential direction for minority languages). KEY DOCTRINE: 1. Doctrine of Linguistic Secularism — Indian language laws are accommodative, not rigid; the object is to secure linguistic secularism (U.P. Hindi Sahitya Sammelan v. State of U.P., 2014).
Article 345 — Proviso (Transitional Provision)
WHAT IT SAYS: 1. Until the State Legislature otherwise provides by law, English shall continue to be used for those official purposes within the State for which it was being used immediately before the commencement of the Constitution (26 January 1950). WHAT IT MEANS: 1. English serves as the DEFAULT official language for States until they legislate otherwise. 2. There is NO time limit on how long English can continue — unlike Article 343 (Union), which set a 15-year deadline. 3. The proviso ensures smooth administrative transition — no linguistic vacuum. 4. Once a State adopts a language by law, the proviso ceases to apply for those purposes covered by the new law. KEY DOCTRINE: 1. Continuity of Administration Principle — English continues as a bridge language to prevent administrative disruption during transition.
Constitutional Inspiration
IF ORIGINAL INDIAN CONTRIBUTION: 1. Article 345 is largely an ORIGINAL INDIAN PROVISION — no direct foreign parallel exists. 2. No other Constitution at the time dealt with multi-state, multi-language official language federalism at this scale. 3. The framers felt this was needed because India had 14+ major languages across provinces, and no single language could be imposed on all States. INDIA'S SPECIFIC ADAPTATIONS: 1. Decentralised Language Choice — Each State decides its own official language(s), reflecting India's extreme linguistic diversity (22 Eighth Schedule languages, 1600+ mother tongues). 2. Hindi given special status — Hindi can be adopted by any State even if not 'in use' there, reflecting the Constituent Assembly's vision of Hindi as a unifying link language. 3. English as transitional default — Unlike other newly independent nations that immediately adopted a national language, India pragmatically retained English as a bridge, preventing administrative chaos. 4. 'Subject to' Articles 346 and 347 — Ensures States' language autonomy does not disrupt inter-State or Union communication, or override linguistic minority protections.
Constituent Assembly Debate
DEBATED ON: 12, 13, and 14 September 1949 (CAD Volume IX) DRAFT ARTICLE: 301C (not present in the original Draft Constitution of 1948; introduced freshly by the Drafting Committee) KEY SPEAKERS: 1. Drafting Committee Member (12 Sept 1949) — Introduced Draft Article 301C, empowering States to adopt any language in use as official language, with English as default until a law is passed. 2. A Member (13 Sept 1949) — Moved amendment to ensure no change in medium of instruction at State Universities or court languages without Parliamentary sanction; argued changing official language overnight would cause 'terrible unnecessary and unavoidable hardship.' 3. Another Member (14 Sept 1949) — Argued against use of English as default for State official purposes; proposed States should continue using the language already in use rather than defaulting to English. MAJOR DISAGREEMENTS: 1. Role of English — Whether English should be the default State language until legislation, or whether regional languages already in use should automatically continue. 2. Parliamentary control — Whether Parliament should have veto power over State-level language changes in universities and courts. FINAL OUTCOME: The first amendment was withdrawn; the second was rejected by the Assembly. Draft Article 301C was adopted WITHOUT any amendments on 14 September 1949. NOTE: 14 September 1949 is now celebrated as Hindi Diwas, marking the day Hindi was adopted as the official language of the Union.
Landmark Judgments
LANDMARK JUDGMENTS: 1. U.P. Hindi Sahitya Sammelan v. State of U.P. (2014) 9 SCC 716 [5-Judge Constitution Bench] — Held that a State's power under Article 345 is NOT exhausted after one use; adopting Hindi does not bar adopting additional official languages (e.g., Urdu as second language). Coined the principle of 'linguistic secularism.' 2. Varshatai v. State of Maharashtra (2025) INSC 486 — Upheld display of Urdu alongside Marathi on municipal signboards; reaffirmed that Article 345 permits use of additional languages and adoption of an official language does not prohibit other languages. 3. K.K. Verma v. Union of India (1954) — Affirmed the transitional constitutional role of English for official purposes under the proviso to Article 345. 4. D.K. Trivedi & Others (Allahabad HC, referred in U.P. Hindi Sahitya case) — Dissented from the view that the 1989 U.P. Amendment Act recognizing Urdu was unconstitutional; held the amendment valid, a view later affirmed by the Supreme Court. NOTABLE DISSENTS: 1. Justice S.N. Sahay in U.P. Hindi Sahitya Sammelan (Allahabad HC) — Held the 1989 Amendment Act making Urdu second official language was ultra vires, though he conceded the State Legislature was not precluded from future legislation under Articles 345 and 347. SCHOLARS & JURISTS: 1. Granville Austin (Constitution: Cornerstone of a Nation, 2000) — Described the language provisions as the most contentious issue in the Constituent Assembly, with Article 345 representing the federal compromise on linguistic autonomy. 2. CJI R.M. Lodha (in U.P. Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, 2014) — Observed that Indian language laws are 'not rigid but accommodative — the object being to secure linguistic secularism.'