- (1.) THIS is a public interest litigation filed in respect of the failure of various governmental organisations, including NCERT, to utilise Hindi terminology as approved by the Standing Commission for Scientific and Technical Terminology. Initially the writ petition was disposed of in view of the fact that the Union of India had agreed to the prayers made by the petitioner.
(2.) IN this application instances of deviations between the technological terms, as decided by the said Commission, and the utilisation of terms by NCERT have been brought on record. NCERT was accordingly made a party and served. Its response is an acknowledgment of marginal variations with the terminology evolved by the Commission and an assertion that the terminologies of the Commission were not binding on it and that it was free to evolve its own terminologies using the Commission's terms as reference points. Pursuant to the direction1 of this Court the Union of India has filed a copy of the resolution under which the Commission was set up. The expenditure involved annually on the running of the Commission has also been stated. It is clear from the resolution that the object of setting up the Commission was to evolve a uniform technical terminology for Hindi and other modern languages. Apart from other objects such as production of university level textbooks, supplementary reading material and reference literature in all disciplines, the primary purpose of the Commission is to facilitate Hindi being used as a medium of instruction in technological subjects.
(3.) THAT uniformity is necessary in the use of technical terms cannot be doubted. Furthermore, the setting up of the Commission and the expenditure incurred in connection therewith would be meaningless if the terminology evolved by the Commission were not in fact used by the Government and bodies under its control. If bodies such as NCERT are already evolving and have the wherewithal in terms of expertise to evolve technical terminologies, then the duplication of effort by and the continued expenditure on the Commission would be unjustifiable unless the effort of the Commission is enjoined.;