JUDGMENT :

Sandeep Mehta, J.

1. Heard.

2. Leave granted.

3. The ability to understand and be understood in one’s own language is not a matter of convenience, but a matter of existential rights, for comprehension must necessarily precede meaningful participation in the society and day to day life activities. It is in this context that language, being the means of expression, is the very essence of an individual. It serves as the medium through which thought takes shape and identity finds recognition. Therefore, in a society governed by law, the accessibility of language assumes constitutional significance.

4. In light of the foregoing reflection, which underscores the fundamental significance of language as the most powerful medium of comprehension and meaningful participation, we shall now proceed to examine the present controversy.

5. The appellants have approached this Court by way of the instant appeal, under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, 1950¹[Hereinafter, referred to as “Constitution”.], for assailing the impugned final order dated 27th November, 2024 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur²[Hereinafter, referred to as “High Court”.] in D.B. Civil