1. Challenge to the requirement of proficiency in the state language for appointment to the District Judicial Service. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
2024 Supreme(SC) 613
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
D.Y. Chandrachud, CJI., J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA, JJ.
The Legal Attorneys And Barristers Law Firm – Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition (Civil) Diary No(s). 53141 of 2023 (For Admission and IA No.146751/2024 - Exemption From Filing O.T. and IA No.146750 of 2024-Condonation of Delay In Refiling / Curing the Defects)
Decided On : 26-07-2024
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
Appointment of Judicial Officers – Requirement of obtaining proficiency in language of the State for appointment to District Judicial Service is a valid requirement.
Appointment of Judicial Officers – Requirement of obtaining proficiency in language of the State for appointment to District Judicial Service is a valid requirement.
Subject
Service Law - Judicial Service Appointments
Act Referred
SERVICE LAW: .
Headnote
Service Law – Appointment of Judicial Officers – Requirement of obtaining proficiency in language of the State for appointment to District Judicial Service is a valid requirement – Judicial Officers on appointment to District Judiciary have to appreciate evidence in language of the State – Imposition of such a requirement is manifestly proper and, in any event, raises an issue of policy – Petition dismissed. (Paras 2 and 3)
Result : Petition dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
administrative law
-
service law
-
judicial appointments
- language proficiency (Para 2)
-
judicial appointments
-
service law
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mrs. Revathy Raghavan, AOR (NP)
For the Petitioner(s): Mrs. Revathy Raghavan, AOR (NP)
Table of Contents
2. Judicial officers must appreciate evidence in the state language; the proficiency requirement is manifestly proper and constitutes a matter of policy. (Para 2 )
3. Proficiency in the state language is a valid requirement for appointment to the District Judicial Service to enable the appreciation of evidence. (Para 2 )
4. Delay condoned; petition dismissed; pending applications disposed of. (Para 1 , 3 , 4 )
5. Is the requirement of proficiency in the state language for appointment to the District Judicial Service legally valid?
Yes, the requirement is valid and manifestly proper because judicial officers appointed to the District Judiciary are required to appreciate evidence in the language of the State. (Para 2 )
ORDER
1. Delay condoned.
2. The requirement of obtaining proficiency in the language of the State for appointment to the District Judicial Service is a valid requirement. The judicial officers on appointment to the District Judiciary have to appreciate evidence in the language of the State. The imposition of such a requirement is manifestly proper and, in any event, raises an issue of policy. We, therefore, decline to entertain the petition.
3. The petition is accordingly dismissed.
4. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.
