IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, ACJ., S. MANU, J.
P.V. Jeevesh, S/o. Vavachan – Petitioner
Versus
Union Of India, Through The Cabinet Secretary, Cabinet Secretariat, South Block, Rashtrapati Bhavan, New Delhi and Ors. – Respondents
WP(C) No. 19240 Of 2024
Decided On : 19-08-2024
LANGUAGE - CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - The court interpreted Article 348 of the Constitution of India, which mandates that the authoritative texts of laws must be in English. The court concluded that the titles of legislation, although in Hindi or Sanskrit, do not constitute the authoritative text as defined by the Article. The decision emphasized that the use of Hindi in titles does not violate the Constitution, as the authoritative text remains in English, ensuring uniformity in legal interpretation across the country.
Fact of the Case:
A public interest litigation was filed by a lawyer seeking to mandate that the titles of certain newly enacted laws be provided in English, claiming that the use of Hindi and Sanskrit titles violated Article 348 of the Constitution.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the titles of the legislation do not constitute the authoritative text as per Article 348. It clarified that the authoritative text refers to the content of the law, which is in English, and that the titles, while integral, do not fall under the definition of authoritative text.
Issues: Whether the titles of the enacted laws in Hindi and Sanskrit violate Article 348 of the Constitution, and whether the petitioner has a justiciable right to challenge this.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the term 'authoritative text' in Article 348 refers to the content of the legislation in English, and that the titles in other languages do not infringe upon this provision. The court also stated that there is no fundamental right to have laws titled in a familiar language, and the use of Hindi in titles does not contravene the Constitution.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, as the court found no violation of fundamental rights and determined that the public interest litigation did not serve any public interest.
JUDGMENT :
(A. Muhamed Mustaque, ACJ.) :
In this public interest litigation filed by a practising lawyer of this Court, the following reliefs are sought;
2) Declare that the action of respondents 1 to 4 in giving nomenclature in Hindi and Sanskrit languages for the Acts is ultra virus to Article 348 and the scheme of the Constitution.
3) Declare that the parliament has no authority to provide nomenclature/title to a particular Act in any language other than the English language, in the light of Article 348 of the constitution.
4) Direct the respondents 1, 3 and 4 to take appropriate decisions on the exhibits P4 to P6 representations.
5) To issue any other appropriate writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the appropriate stage.
2. The parliament enacted The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and The Bharathiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. These enactments came into effect from 01.07.2024. Title of these legislations though are described in English but the words are not from the English language. The question is whether these legislations are in violation of Article 348(1)(ii) of the Constitution of India. Article 348 of the Constitution of India mandates the following;
(a) all proceedings in the Supreme Court and in every High Court,
(b) the authoritative texts-
(i) of all Bills to be introduced or amendments thereto to be moved in either House of Parliament or in the House or either House of the Legislature of a State,
(ii) of all Acts passed by Parliament or the Legislature of a State and of all Ordinances promulgated by the President or the Governor of a State, and
(iii) of all orders, rules, regulations and bye-laws issued under this Constitution or under any law made by Parliament or the Legislature of a State, shall be in the English language. (2) Notwithstanding anything in sub-clause (a) of clause (1), the Governor of a State may, with the previous consent of the President, authorise the use of the Hindi language, or any other language used for any official purposes of the State, in proceedings in the High Court having its principal seat in that State:
Provided that nothing in this clause shall apply to any judgment, decree or order passed or made by such High Court.
(3) Notwithstanding anything in sub-clause (b) of clause (1), where the Legislature of a State has prescribed any language other than the English language for use in Bills introduced in, or Acts passed by, the Legislature of the State or in Ordinances promulgated by the Governor of the State or in any order, rule, regulation or bye-law referred to in paragraph (iii) of that sub-clause, a translation of the same in the English language published under the authority of the Governor of the State in the Official Gazette of that State shall be deemed to be the authoritative text thereof in the English language under this article.”
3. What is the meaning of 'authoritative text' as referred to in Article 348 1(b) of the Constitution of India? The text of this enactment is in English. Here, the text means content. Authoritative is used as an adjective to indicate that the quality of the text or content must be in English. Although the title of a legislation is often used to understand the text and is treated as integral to the text, it cannot be construed as an authoritative text as understood in Article 348 of the Constitution of India. Nomenclature is nothing but title of the legislation and cannot be considered as the text referred to in Article 348 of the Constitution of India.
4. Article 348 is based on Section
The court affirmed the validity of both Hindi and English versions of the notification, with the English translation taking authoritative precedence in cases of conflict, establishing the legal frame....
The use of Urdu on Municipal Council signboards is permissible under the Maharashtra Local Authorities (Official Languages) Act, 2022, as it does not prohibit additional languages, emphasizing commun....
Official communications in region 'C' must be bilingual, ensuring accessibility for non-Hindi speakers.
Right to receive primary education in mother tongue forms part of freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) and obligates States to implement constitutional and policy mandates for incl....
The requirement of proficiency in Telugu for judicial positions is justified for efficient administration of justice and does not violate constitutional principles of equality.
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.