As his tenure on the bench nears its conclusion, Justice Gautam Chowdhary of the has delivered a poignant and firm critique regarding the continued dominance of the English language within the Indian . During his final address before superannuating on , the judge emphasized that despite nearly eight decades of independence from British colonial rule, the nation’s courtrooms remain heavily tethered to the linguistic framework of its former occupiers. The speech, delivered entirely in Hindi, served as a call to action for the legal community to reflect on the psychological and administrative reliance on a foreign tongue in the .
Justice Chowdhary’s remarks have reignited a longstanding conversation among legal professionals regarding the decolonization of the Indian judiciary. He argued that while the country has achieved geographical and , a lingering "subservience" to the English language persists, particularly within the higher judiciary. The judge suggested that this reliance is not merely a matter of convenience but a fundamental issue of national identity that warrants a serious re-evaluation by every Indian citizen, especially those involved in the delivery of justice.
Breaking Free From Colonial Linguistic Norms
The central thrust of Justice Chowdhary's argument lies in the symbolic and practical implications of using English as the primary medium for judgments and . Addressing the transition of judges from the to the , he noted that many jurists, who have demonstrated professional excellence while using local languages in lower courts, often feel a self-imposed pressure to adopt English once they are elevated.
"I want to underline that while we may have become free from the British constitutionally and geographically, nearly 80 years have passed, yet we have still not liberated ourselves from the English language,"
Justice Chowdhary stated. He framed this reliance as a psychological barrier that prevents the judiciary from fully connecting with the citizenry it serves. By continuing to conduct the vast majority of
proceedings in English, the system remains inaccessible to a significant portion of the population for whom the language of the courtroom is a foreign instrument of power rather than a tool for clarity.
The judge was careful to clarify that his stance does not stem from an animosity toward English. He employed a metaphorical comparison, describing other global languages as "maternal aunts" to whom respect is due, while asserting that the native Indian tongue should be treated as a "mother." The pain, he noted, arises when the mother is relegated to a position of inferiority within her own home.
The Case for Regional Language Adoption
Moving beyond abstract ideology, the judge proposed a structural shift that would see courts operate more fluidly in the dominant languages of their respective regions. He pointed specifically to the linguistic diversity of India, suggesting that it would be a "wonderful" development if judgments were rendered in Bengali in West Bengal and in Gujarati in Gujarat. In Hindi-speaking states, he argued, the focus should remain on fostering the widespread, normalized use of Hindi in formal judicial writing.
This proposal touches on a broader administrative challenge: the need to standardize legal terminology across regional languages. Critics of such a transition often point to the risk of ambiguity in legal drafting, yet proponents argue that the lack of vernacular accessibility in courts is a greater democratic deficit. By encouraging judges to draft their decisions in Hindi, Justice Chowdhary is advocating for a system where legal thought is not forced through the filter of a translation process but is articulated directly in the language that the judge and the litigants understand with the greatest nuance.
For the legal profession, this transition would require a significant overhaul of how law schools train students and how legal research databases are maintained. However, Justice Chowdhary suggests that the impediment is not inherent in the languages themselves, but in a collective mindset that associates the English language with a higher degree of professional rigor.
Challenging the Myth of Judicial Elegance
One of the most striking aspects of the judge's address was his direct challenge to the perception that judgments written in English are inherently superior or more "elegant." He told the assembled judges that there is no professional or legal impediment to drafting complex rulings in Hindi, provided the writer has a command of the subject matter. He dismissed the notion that English is the only medium capable of producing high-quality judicial reasoning, noting that the capacity to articulate complex thoughts is not tied to any single vocabulary.
The judge’s appeal is specifically aimed at the judges elevated from the , urging them to carry their comfort with local languages into the . He posited that the transition to English often hinders the fluidity of judicial expression rather than enhancing it. By choosing to write in Hindi, he argued, judges can maintain a closer connection to the and the social reality of the cases before them.
As Justice Chowdhary prepares to step down, his comments have left an imprint on the ongoing discourse regarding . While the transition from English to regional languages remains a complex administrative task involving constitutional provisions and linguistic standardizations, the ideological debate he has highlighted is likely to persist. His message serves as a reminder that the evolution of an independent judiciary involves not only structural independence from the executive branch but also the reclamation of the cultural and linguistic tools used to dispense justice. For now, the legal community is left to deliberate on his call—a challenge to move beyond the habits formed during the colonial era and move toward a more vernacular-focused .
judicial language reform - vernacular court proceedings - decolonizing legal practice - language in judiciary
