Important Point – Official language of High Court of Gujarat is English.

Jayant M. Patel, J.

1. As such, at the outset, we may record that all these matters are referred to the Division Bench of this Court under the orders passed by Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice on administrative side for necessary direction/order, since the Hon'ble Single Judges of this Court on judicial side had made observation inter alia that the committee under Rule 31A of the Gujarat High Court Rules, 1993, (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules") had made observations about the use of the language of Gujarati though language of the Court is English and the certificate of competence issued by the Committee under Rule 31A of the Rules ignoring the language to be used in the court proceedings.

BACKGROUND:

2. In order to appreciate the necessity of direction or orders of the Division Bench, we may briefly refer to the background.

3. Criminal Revision Application No. 201/15 has been preferred in Gujarat Language by party-in-person Manish Kanaiyalal Gupta under section 397 read with section 401 of Cr.P.C. Against the order dated 17.03.2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge in Appeal No. 56/14. The application was made for certification of competency to assist the court by the party-in-person and such has been so certified by the members of the committee. When the matter came up for hearing before the learned Single Judge of this Court (Coram: N.V. Anjaria, J.), on 08.05.2015, following order was passed:--

"The applicant appears as party-in-person.

As the party-in-person proceeded to conduct and argue the matter, he fairly conceded that he was not well-versed with English language and is not able to understand English. He stated that he is proficient in Hindi language. The pleadings as well as the impugned order are in Gujarati.

Party-in-person, however stated, that he has brought with him a person named Mukeshkumar Lakshmanbhai Vankar who, stated party-in-person further, is experienced with the proceedings of the Court and knows language of the Court and that he may act as a Mediator. Party-in-person requested the Court that while he would conduct the matter, the said other person would explain the argument and fill-up communication gap between the party-in-person and the Court. The party-in-person is the native of the State of Uttar Pradesh. The person who he brought projecting himself to be the Mediator, is the resident of Ahmedabad.

The subject matter and the order impugned in the Revision Application is an order passed under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 whereby the applicant is directed to pay maintenance to wife.

As the party-in-person wanted to assail that order, he was asked to read some of the paragraphs from the pleadings of the Revision Application which is in Gujarati language. The party-in-person struggled like anything. His struggling was expected in as much as he had conceded that he did not know Gujarati language.

The entire scenario created before the Court by the party-in-person as above was a sorry state of affair and if repeated, would undermine the decorum of the Court.

The certification of competency to appear as party-in-person given to the applicant under Rule 31A of the Gujarat High Court Rules, 1993 showed that the applicant is proficient in Hindi language. The language of the pleadings is different, the language of the Court is different and the knowledge of the applicant is in different language. This was super-added by the dramatic request of the party-in-person allowing him to be assisted by another individual to interpret and explain to the Court the arguments and submissions of party-in-person. The certification granted by the Committee certifying the party-in-person competent to appear and conduct the matter requires re-examination. Accordingly the Committee acting under Rule 31A of the Gujarat High Court Rules, 1993 shall undertake the process anew and take afresh decision.

The matter may be listed on 23rd June, 2015."

4. The aforesaid shows that it was observed by the le