1970 JTR(SC) 362
1971 AIR(SC) 2608 ; 1970 3 SCC 738 ; 1970 SCD 975 ; 1971 2 SCJ 344 ; 1971 2 SCR 145 ; 1970 2 SCWR 664 ; 1971 KHC 799
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M. HIDAYATULLAH, C.J.I., J.M. SHELAT, V. BHARGAVA, G.K. MITTER, C.A. VAIDIALINGAM, A.N. RAY, AND I.D. DUA, JJ.
Madhu Limaye and another, Petitioners
Versus
Ved Murti and others, Respondents. Mr. Raj Nararain, Intervener.
Writ Petn. No. 307 of 1970, D/- 10-9-1970.
Advocates appeared
Mr. Madhu Limaye in person (Petitioner No. 1). M/s. K. Rajendra Chaudhuri and Pratap. Singh, Advocates, for Petitioner No. 2. Mr. C. K. Daphtary and Dr. L. M. Singhvi, Sr. Advocates (Mr. O. P. Rana, Advocate, with them), for Respondents. Mr. Niren De, Attorney-General for India (M/s. R. H. Dhebar, H. R. Khanna, S. P. Nayar and R. N. Sachthey, Advocates, with him), for Attorney General for India and Union of India. M/s. S. C. Agarwal and D. P. Singh, Advocates and Mr. Raj Narain in person, for Intervener.
Under Article 348 of the Constitution of India, the official language of the Supreme Court is English. Parties must present their arguments in English, either orally or in writing, or through counsel, to ensure the court and opposing parties can understand the proceedings.
Act
Referred
:CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
: Art.348
(A) Constitution of India - Article 348 - Language of the Court - Use of Hindi in proceedings - Intervener insisting on arguing in Hindi - Court and opposing counsel unable to understand the arguments - Language of the Court is English - Alternatives offered to the party to argue in English, allow counsel to present the case, or provide written arguments in English - Refusal to comply with the suggestions - Intervention cancelled. (Paras 1, 2)
Facts of the case:
In a habeas petition involving the liberty of a citizen, an intervener insisted on presenting arguments in Hindi. The court observed that the opposing counsel and some members of the bench could not understand the arguments made in that language.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the language of the court is English as per the constitutional mandate.
Issues: Whether a party may be permitted to argue their case in Hindi before the court when the court and opposing counsel cannot understand the language.
Ratio Decidendi: Pursuant to Article 348 of the Constitution, the official language of the court is English; therefore, if a party is unable or unwilling to present arguments in English, either orally or in writing, or through counsel, the court cannot proceed with their intervention.
Result: Intervention cancelled.
Facts of the case:
In a habeas petition involving the liberty of a citizen, an intervener insisted on presenting arguments in Hindi. The court observed that the opposing counsel and some members of the bench could not understand the arguments made in that language.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the language of the court is English as per the constitutional mandate.
Issues: Whether a party may be permitted to argue their case in Hindi before the court when the court and opposing counsel cannot understand the language.
Ratio Decidendi: Pursuant to Article 348 of the Constitution, the official language of the court is English; therefore, if a party is unable or unwilling to present arguments in English, either orally or in writing, or through counsel, the court cannot proceed with their intervention.
Result: Intervention cancelled.
Judgment
ORDER: Mr. Raj Narain yesterday insisted on arguing in Hindi. He was heard for sometime with a view to see whether we could follow him simply, because this is a habeas petition involving the liberty of the citizen. Because of the importance of the case, we heard him for sometime, but the Attorney-General, Mr. Daphtary who is opposing him and some of the members of the Bench could not understand the arguments made in Hindi yesterday. In these circumstances, it is futile to permit Mr. Raj Narain to continue his arguments in Hindi. He has a counsel Mr. D. P. Singh already in attendance and helping him. We suggested the following three alternatives,
(a) that he may argue in English; or
(b) he may allow his counsel to present his case; or
(c) he may give his written arguments in English
2. The language of this Court is English (see Art. 348 of the Constitution). If Mr. Raj Narain is not agreeable to these suggestions, and we understand, he is not, the only alternative for us is to cancel his intervention. We order accordingly.
Order accordingly.
For Citation : AIR 1971 SC 2608