Allahabad High Court Rules English Text Remains Authoritative In State Statutes Amid Translation Dispute

Allahabad High Court Rules English Text Remains Authoritative In State Statutes Amid Translation Dispute

In a significant ruling regarding the interpretation of statutory language, the High Court of Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, has settled a conflict between vernacular and English versions of state service rules. Presided over by Justice Manish Mathur, the Court ruled that in instances of discrepancy between Hindi and English texts of state regulations, the English version remains the authoritative text under Article 348 of the Constitution of India.

The Conflict of Interpretation

The case arose from a petition filed by Maya Shukla, who sought to participate in the recruitment process for the post of "cutting swing." The dispute centered on the U.P. Audhyogik Shikshan Sansthan (Anudeshak) Sewa Niyamavali 2014 . The petitioner argued that based on the Hindi version of the Rules, she was entitled to specific considerations regarding her academic marks. Conversely, the Lower Subordinate Service Selection Commission maintained that the English version of the Rules, which contained different criteria, governed the selection process.

Arguments at the Bar

Counsel for the petitioner relied on the Hindi version of the 2014 Rules, asserting that its methodology for calculating merit was binding. The respondents, however, contended that the selection procedure was strictly in accordance with the English version, titled the UP Industrial Training Institutes (Instructors) Service Rules, 2014 . They further argued that the English version must prevail due to the constitutional mandate concerning authoritative texts.

Constitutional Principles and Precedents

Justice Manish Mathur underscored the constitutional mandate laid out in Article 348(3), which dictates that when a state legislature adopts a language other than English for its acts or rules, the English translation published under the authority of the Governor serves as the authoritative text.

The Court referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Prabhat Kumar Sharma versus Union Public Service Commission , which reaffirmed that English remains the authoritative text for interpreting statutes. Additionally, the Court cited the Full Bench decision in Smt. Ram Rati versus Gram Samaj Jehwa , noting that local language versions cannot supersede the English text when they conflict, as the power to override this provision vests solely in the Parliament.

Key Observations

The judgment highlighted the necessity of legal consistency, noting:

> "In the considered opinion of this court, Clause 3 of Article 348 of the Constitution of India therefore clearly prescribes an aspect that in case of any dichotomy between the vernacular language and English language, it is the English language which will be considered to be authoritative."

The Court further clarified the legal hierarchy, stating:

> "The authoritative text of any Bill, Act or Ordinance of a State Legislature cannot be in a language other than the English language unless the Parliament by law otherwise provides."

Regarding the outcome, the Court observed:

> "In view of aforesaid facts & circumstances, it is quite evident that not only in terms of Article 348(3) of Constitution of India, but also in terms of judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court and Full Bench decision of this court, it would be the English version of any Hindi translation of a bill or order or service regulations which would prevail."

Final Decision and Implications

Finding that the petitioner's claim rested on the Hindi version, which failed to supersede the authoritative English text, the Court dismissed the writ petition at the admission stage. This ruling serves as a vital reminder to legal professionals and administrative bodies that the English versions of state regulations hold precedence in the event of translation errors or inconsistencies, ensuring uniformity in the application of recruitment and service laws across the state.