SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
RANJAN GOGOI, CJI., S.A. BOBDE, DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, ASHOK BHUSHAN, S. ABDUL NAZEER, JJ.
M.Siddiq (D) thr. Lrs. - Appellant
Versus
Mahant Suresh Das and Ors. - Respondents
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 10866-10867 of 2010, C.A. NO. 4768-4771 of 2011 (III-A) [ITEM NO.501.1], C.A. NO. 2636 of 2011 (III-A) [ITEM NO.501.2], C.A. NO. 821 of 2011 (III-A) [ITEM NO.501.3], C.A. NO. 4739 of 2011 (III-A) [ITEM NO.501.4], (FOR DISCHARGE OF ADVOCATE ON RECORD ON IA 95540 of 2018), C.A. NO. 4905-4908 of 2011 (III-A) [ITEM NO.501.5], C.A. NO. 2215 of 2011 (III-A) [ITEM NO.501.6], C.A. NO. 4740 of 2011 (III-A) [ITEM NO.501.7], C.A. NO. 2894 of 2011 (III-A) [ITEM NO.501.8], C.A. NO. 6965 of 2011 (III-A) [ITEM NO.501.9], C.A. NO. 4192 of 2011 (III-A) [ITEM NO.501.10], C.A. NO. 5498 of 2011 (III-A) [ITEM NO.501.11], C.A. NO. 7226 of 2011 (III-A) [ITEM NO.501.12], C.A. NO. 8096 of 2011 (III-A) [ITEM NO.501.13], DIARY NO(S). 22744 of 2017 (XI) [ITEM NO.501.14] I.A. NO.69841 of 2017 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, W.P.(C) NO. 294 of 2018 (X) [ITEM NO.501.15] (FOR ADMISSION), I.A. NO.72707 of 2018 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T., I.A. NO.72706 of 2018 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS, W.P. NO.151 of 2019 (x) [ITEM NO.502]FOR ADMISSION AND I.A. NO.24779 of 2019 - CLARIFICATION/DIRECTION, W.P. (C) NO.105 OF 2016 (X) [ITEM NO.503]
Decided on : 26-02-2019
Translation of Vernacular Documents - Compliance with Supreme Court Rules - Order VIII Rule 2, Order XIX Rule 11(1)
Fact of the Case:
The Supreme Court received a report from the Secretary General regarding the state of readiness of cases for hearing, specifically mentioning the need for translation of vernacular documents in compliance with Supreme Court Rules. The report detailed the inspection of records, the number of pages in different languages, and the need for translation of documents not in English.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the records received were not in compliance with the Supreme Court Rules, particularly Order VIII Rule 2 and Order XIX Rule 11(1), which require translation of documents not in English. The report highlighted the need for official translators and the time required for translation to make the cases ready for hearing.
Issues: The main issue was the non-compliance with Supreme Court Rules regarding the translation of vernacular documents, leading to the need for official translation and the assessment of time required for case readiness.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized the importance of complying with the Supreme Court Rules, particularly Order VIII Rule 2 and Order XIX Rule 11(1), regarding the translation of documents not in English. The report's details regarding the number of pages in different languages and the need for official translators influenced the Court's decision.
Final Decision: The Court deferred passing orders on the suggestion of mediation and set a date for further consideration, emphasizing the need for parties to satisfy themselves with the accuracy and relevance of the translations before the hearing could commence.
ORDER :
Pursuant to the order of this Court dated 10th January, 2019, the Secretary General of this Court has submitted a report on 29th January, 2019 indicating the state of readiness of the cases [i.e. appeals/writ petitions/special leave petition(s)] for hearing. The said report has been circulated to the learned counsels for the parties in Court today i.e. 26th February, 2019.
The report of the Secretary General of this Court is in the following terms.
“REPORT
1. This report is being submitted in compliance with Order dated 10.01.2019 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 1086610867 of 2010, titled as “M. Siddiq. (D) Thr. Lrs. Vs. Mahant Suresh Das and Ors.”.
2. By virtue of Order dated 10.1.2019 in C.A. Nos. 10866-10867 of 2010, the Hon’ble Court was pleased to issue following directions to the Registry of Supreme Court of India:
“The orders of this Court, particularly, the order dated 10th August, 2015 indicate that though the learned counsels for the parties had attempted to submit some translated version of the evidence there is a dispute with regard to the correctness of the translations made.
In these circumstances, the Registry of this Court is directed to physically inspect the records which are lying under lock and key; make an assessment of the time that will be taken to make the cases ready for hearing by engaging, if required, official translators of the requisite number and give a report thereof to the court. The said report will be submitted to this Court by the Registry on 29th January, 2019 when the reconstituted Bench (without Uday Umesh Lalit, J.), as may be, will assemble once again to take up the matter for further orders.”
3. It will be appropriate to mention here that prior to issuing aforesaid directions, the Hon’ble Court in its order had also observed that:
“......The Bench has been informed that the original records are lying in 15 sealed trunks in a room which has also been sealed. Whether the depositions and documents which are in Persian, Sanskrit, Arabic, Gurumukhi, Urdu and Hindi, etc. have been translated is not clear.”
4. To comply above-mentioned directions, the Secretary General on 12.01.2019, has constituted two Committees. Copy of document showing constitution of Committee is enclosed herewith as Annexure I.
5. Accordingly, all the members of both the Committees visited the room where the record is kept. The keys of the room and trunks were in the possession of Registrar (J-I). The same were kept in the sealed envelope. The envelope was opened in the presence of members of both the Committees. The lock with the seal of the room was found to be intact. Thereafter, the lock was opened, by breaking the seal, in the presence of Committee Members. There were 15 trunks in the room. Each trunk was having two locks and all the locks were found properly sealed. Report to that effect was prepared at the spot, and signed by the Committee Members. The charge of the room and sealed boxes was then handed over to the Committee No.2, for further compliance of the order.
6. The members of second Committee with the assistance of officials of Registry, opened all the trunks one after the another. The record was physically inspected. It will be appropriate to mention here that Original record from the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench was received in two consignments, consisting of 8 trunks (numbered 1 to 8) & 7 trunks (numbered 1 to 7) respectively. The first consignment was received on 24.3.2014 and the second on 17.8.2017.
7. The officers and officials of the Registry have physically inspected the entire record kept in the trunks. It was found that the original documents were kept in Trunk Nos.1,2,4,5 & 6 of the first consignment. The scanned copies thereof were found placed in Trunk No.3,7 & 8 of the first consignment. In addition, 7 DVDs containing entire record in digitiz
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.