Back
2012 Supreme(All) 2773
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
BEFORE : A.P. SAHI, J.
Smt. RAJESHWARI .....Petitoner
Versus
STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS .....Respondents
(Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 54488 of 2012, decided on 16th October, 2012)
Counsel :
Mahesh Kumar Tripathi for the Petitioner; C.S.C., Yashwant Verma for the Respondents; V.P. Srivastava and Daya Shanker Mishra (invited by Court) for Assistance.
Headnote:Constitution of India, 1950—Articles 348(2), 348(1) and 225—Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952—Chapter IV, Rules 8 and 15, Chapter VIII, Rule 36, Chapter XIV, Rule 15 and Chapter XV, Rule 23—Writ petition—English Translation—Language to be used in writ petition, affidavit, counter-affidavit and other documents—may be Hindi and Litigant cannot be compelled to file its English translation—But, as few Judges came from other States and are not fully conversent with Hindi language—Be helped by giving English translation of these petitions etc.—In this petition, Single Judge of High Court considered interim directions of another Single Judge and Division Bench, in which direction was issued for filing English translation—It was found that while issuing these directions Single Judge and Division Bench were not informed about views of earlier Division Bench and Supreme Court—After discussing entire controversy, this Single Bench observed that office circular dated 10.10.2012—Be followed by Chief Standing Counsel so long as no fresh or further direction are issued or rules are framed—It was directed that copy of this direction be also circulated by Registrar General to all concerned forthwith, so that confusion amongst members of Bar and Reporting Section of High Court be vanished—It was clarified that litigants should not be compelled to file translated copy of Hindi annexures in English which are filed in writ petition—Procedure is hand made of justice—Language of Court should be simple and easier for communication amongst them for whom justice is to be dispensed. [Paras 6 to 18 and 21 to 26]
Hon’ble A.P. Sahi, J.—Heard Sri Mahesh Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. This writ petition has been filed with Annexures in Hindi. The interim order of a learned Single Judge in writ petition No. 665 of 2007 dated 24th of July, 2012 and another interim order of a Division Bench dated 5th October, 2012 in writ petition No. 51172 of 2012 has been circulated by the Registrar General under the orders of the Division Bench and accordingly the aforesaid two orders have been placed before this Court which are quoted hereinunder for ready reference :
“Hon’ble Sunil Hali, J.
Counter-affidavit filed by the Secretary, Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad be taken on record.
In paragraph 7 of the counter-affidavit, it is stated that all the original records and certified copies regarding the appointment in a sealed cover have been sent to the C.B.C.I.D. for providing necessary information in the matter.
Let the report be called from the Investigating Agency, i.e., C.B.C.I.C. indicating progress in the investigation.
Counter-affidavit has been filed by the State without providing translated copy of the same in English.
The Registry will not entertain any counter-affidavit which is in vernacular language unless translated copy thereof in English is also attached with it in future. The Joint Registrar (Listing) is directed to circulate this information to all concerned persons. Any omission in this behalf would be treated seriously.
List this matter on 8.8.2012.
A certified copy of this order shall be provided to the learned Standing Counsel for communication to the concerned parties on payment of usual charges.”
“Hon’ble Amitava Lala, Acting Chief Justice
Hon’ble Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel, J.
Leave is granted to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner to file translated copy of the writ petition by next date.
It has been decided by one of Hon’ble Judges of this Court sitting Singly (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sunil Hali) by order dated 24.7.2012 in Writ C No. 665 of 2007 (Ritesh Kumar Trigunayat v. State of U.P. and others) that no affidavit will be filed in Hindi and if it is filed, a translated copy will be provided for the purpose of consideration of the same. The relevant part of the order is quoted herein:
“The Registry will not entertain any counter-affidavit which is in vernacular language unless translated copy thereof in English is also attached with it in future. The Joint Registrar (Listing) is directed to circulate this information to all concerned persons. Any omission in this behalf would be treated seriously.”
Against this background, we are of the view that the observation of the Court has persuasive value. It should be applicable in case of writ petition, criminal and civil proceedings also.
This order will be circulated by the Registrar General to all concerned and in case of necessity the Allahabad High Court Rules may be amended to that extent.
Let it appear before appropriate Bench. Subject to filing of the translated copy of the writ petition, the matter will be heard.”
3. It is on account of these orders that the Court found it necessary to deal with the matter as this Court finds that the relevant material in respect of court language including the High Court Rules and the judgments of this Court do not appear to have been placed either before the learned Single Judge or before the Division Bench in order to appreciate the entire controversy in correct perspective.
4. For the purpose of understanding the genesis of this dispute, that had arisen on account of the aforesaid orders, reference be had to Article 348 of the Constitution of India which is quoted hereinunder :
348. Language to be used in the Supreme Court and in the High Courts and for Acts, Bills, etc.—(1) Notwithstanding anything in the foregoing provisions of this Part, until Parliament by law otherwise provides—
(a) all proceedings in the Supreme Court and in every High Court,
(b) the authoritative texts—
(i) of all Bills to be intro
