Inclusion Without Norms: Eighth Schedule’s Procedural Vacuum With Special Reference To The Mizo Language Proposal
- IJLLR Journal
- Nov 21
- 2 min read
R. Vanlalpeki, PhD Scholar, Faculty of Law, University of Delhi
ABSTRACT
The Eighth Schedule of the Constitution of India lists the official languages recognised for specific constitutional purposes. While its scope has expanded from 14 to 22 languages since 1950, no constitutional or statutory criteria govern the inclusion of further languages. Through information obtained under the Right to Information Act, 2005, this note examines the absence of objective norms, the political and procedural implications of such a vacuum, and the status of the Mizo language proposal.
The findings reveal that despite decades of committee work the Pahwa Committee (1996) and the Sitakant Mohapatra Committee (2003) the Union Government has been unable to finalise measurable standards for inclusion. As a result, 38 language proposals remain in indefinite limbo, perpetuating unequal treatment among linguistic communities. The absence of clear criteria violates the principles of equality and non-arbitrariness enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. Without a rational framework, inclusion decisions risk being guided by political expediency rather than constitutional morality, frustrating the expectations of marginalized linguistic groups.
This note argues that the procedural indeterminacy surrounding the Eighth Schedule erodes constitutional trust and undermines India’s pluralist commitments. By situating the Mizo language proposal within this broader policy vacuum, this note highlights the need for a statutory framework that institutionalises fairness, transparency, and predictability in language recognition. Establishing objective criteria such as demographic presence, cultural significance, and administrative viability would curb political discretion and reinforce constitutional morality. In doing so, India can meaningfully advance its federal and multicultural ethos, ensuring that linguistic recognition becomes a right grounded in justice and equality rather than a privilege granted at the state’s discretion for all linguistic communities.
Keywords: Eighth Schedule, Linguistic rights, Article 14, Language inclusion policy, Mizo language proposal, Constitutional equality.
