A common language for justice

Why in the News

A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) asked the Supreme Court to direct the Union to set up a commission recommending Hindi as the official language of the Supreme Court. A three judge Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India (CJI) responded that language reforms were already under way in phases. The exchange raises the question of who decides the language of India’s courts.

What does the Constitution say about the language of courts?

1. Default rule: Under Article 348(1)(a), English is the language of all proceedings in the Supreme Court and every High Court until Parliament provides otherwise by law. Parliament has passed no such law.
2. Why one language: A court needs one working language so every judge on a Bench can follow every argument, like a meeting of people from many States agreeing on one shared language.
3. High Court exception: Under Article 348(2), a Governor, with the President’s prior consent, may allow Hindi or the State’s official language in High Court proceedings. The permission does not cover judgments, decrees and orders.
4. Judgments in Hindi: Section 7 of the Official Languages Act, 1963 allows High Court judgments in Hindi or the State’s language, with an authoritative English translation. Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and Bihar use Hindi in their High Courts.
5. The takeaway: Indian languages enter the High Courts only by permission and never displace English, so the Supreme Court’s language can change only through Parliament.

What did the Bench say?

1. Phased reform: The Bench observed that language reforms were already being carried out in phases through administrative measures.
2. Amendment needed: One judge on the Bench said granting such relief would require a constitutional amendment.
3. Regional summaries: The CJI noted that the court already gives brief descriptions of its reports in Hindi, to be extended to other regional languages to preserve linguistic diversity.
4. Two different goals: The Bench separated changing the judiciary’s language regime, the language courts officially work in, from making its work accessible in Indian languages.

Can a court order Parliament to change the language?

1. Separation of powers: The doctrine of separation of powers keeps the legislature, the executive and the judiciary each within its own field. The language of courts is Parliament’s field.
2. No mandamus to legislate: Courts cannot issue a writ of mandamus, an order to perform a duty, compelling Parliament to enact a law, amend the Constitution or set up a commission.
3. Settled precedent: In Madhu Limaye v. Ved Murti (1970), the Court held that “the language of this Court is English”. An intervener (a third party joining the case) who insisted on Hindi was not heard, because the judges could not follow him.

Should one language replace another?

1. Unity versus diversity: A court must speak one language to keep justice consistent, yet citizens of many tongues must understand its rulings.
2. Access, not replacement: The better course is to make the court’s work accessible in more Indian languages, not to replace English with Hindi.
3. SUVAS: The Supreme Court Vidhik Anuvaad Software (SUVAS), an artificial intelligence (AI) based translation tool, translates judgments into 16 languages.

Challenges

1. Linguistic politics: Making Hindi the court’s language would provoke resistance in non Hindi States. Eg. Tamil Nadu’s opposition to Hindi imposition.
2. Translation accuracy: Machine translation of legal terms can alter a judgment’s meaning, so English stays the authoritative text.
3. Law in English: Statutes, precedents and legal education are largely in English, so a switch would strand existing law.

Way Forward

1. Vetted translation: Extend SUVAS to more languages, with legal experts checking each translated judgment.
2. Wider summaries: Complete the extension of report summaries from Hindi to other regional languages.
3. Interpreters at hearings: Provide interpreters so litigants can follow hearings.

Conclusion

The language of the Supreme Court is for Parliament to decide, and the court has chosen to widen access rather than switch languages. How far translation reaches litigants in their own languages, without weakening the authority of a single text, is the unresolved test.

Official Languages under the Constitution

1. Union language: Article 343 makes Hindi in Devanagari script the official language of the Union. The 1963 Act continued English beyond 1965.
2. Language commission: Article 344 provides for a presidential Official Language Commission, whose report a parliamentary committee examines. The first, under B.G. Kher, came in 1955.
3. States and promotion: Articles 345 to 347 let States adopt their own official languages, and Article 351 directs the Union to promote the spread of Hindi.
4. Eighth Schedule: It lists 22 languages, and members of the Article 344 commission represent them.

Matching Previous Year Question

“[2022] Consider the following statements : 1. Pursuant to the report of H.N. Sanyal Committee, the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 was passed. 2. The Constitution of India empowers the Supreme Court and the High Courts to punish for contempt of themselves. 3. The Constitution of India defines Civil Contempt and Criminal Contempt. 4. In India, the Parliament is vested with the powers to make laws on Contempt of Court. Which of the statements given above is/are correct ?4 (a) 1 and 2 only (b) 1, 2 and 4 (c) 3 and 4 only (d) 3 only ANSWER: (b)”