Back
High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
B. P. Sinha, C. J. and G. P. Bhutt, J.
L.M.WAKHARE - Appellant
Versus
STATE - Respondents
Misc. Petn. 304 Of 1953
Decided On : 12/29/1953
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - OFFICIAL LANGUAGE - VALIDITY OF NOTIFICATION PRESCRIBING LANGUAGES FOR OFFICIAL PURPOSES - MADHYA PRADESH OFFICIAL LANGUAGES ACT, 1950 (XXIV OF 1950), SECTION 3 - NOTIFICATION NO. 587-1305-XXVII, DATED 13-8-1953 - ARTICLES 345, 350, 19 (1) (A), 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION - DELEGATA POTESTAS NON POTEST DELEGARE - DOCTRINE OF.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, an advocate, challenged the validity of the Notification No. 587-1305-XXVII, dated 13-8-1953, issued by the Madhya Pradesh Government prescribing Hindi and Marathi as the official languages for all purposes except those specified in Schedule I. The petitioner contended that the notification violated Articles 345, 350, 19 (1) (a), and 14 of the Constitution, and that it was void due to the doctrine of delegata potestas non potest delegare.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the notification was valid and did not violate any of the provisions of the Constitution. It held that the Madhya Pradesh Legislature was entitled to adopt both Hindi and Marathi as the official languages since both were in use in the State. The Court also held that the notification did not offend against Article 350 as it did not deal with legal matters covered by Section 3 of the Madhya Pradesh Official Languages Act. Further, the Court held that the notification did not violate Article 19 (1) (a) as it was not intended to cover the question of official languages. The Court also rejected the contention that the notification violated Article 14 as it did not affect any legal rights.
Issues: 1. Whether the Notification No. 587-1305-XXVII, dated 13-8-1953, issued by the Madhya Pradesh Government prescribing Hindi and Marathi as the official languages for all purposes except those specified in Schedule I, was valid? 2. Whether the notification violated Articles 345, 350, 19 (1) (a), and 14 of the Constitution? 3. Whether the notification was void due to the doctrine of delegata potestas non potest delegare?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the Madhya Pradesh Legislature was entitled to adopt both Hindi and Marathi as the official languages since both were in use in the State. 2. The Court held that the notification did not offend against Article 350 as it did not deal with legal matters covered by Section 3 of the Madhya Pradesh Official Languages Act. 3. The Court held that the notification did not violate Article 19 (1) (a) as it was not intended to cover the question of official languages. 4. The Court held that the notification did not violate Article 14 as it did not affect any legal rights.
Final Decision: The Court rejected the petition and held that the notification was valid. However, the Court directed that the notification would not be used so as to affect the rights under the provisions of Section 137 (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure.
( 2 ) ARTICLE 345 of the Constitution empowers the Legislature of a State to adopt any one or more of the languages in use in that State or Hindi as the language or languages to be used for all or any of the official purposes of that State. Under the proviso to this article, it is directed that until the Legislature of the State otherwise provides by law, the English language shall continue to be used for those official purposes within the State for which it was being used immediately before the commencement of the Constitution. This Article is subject to Articles 346 and 347 of the Constitution which, however, are not pertinent to the present case.
( 3 ) THE Madhya Pradesh Official Language Act, 1950 (XXIV of 1930), was passed by the State Legislature by virtue of the powers vested in it under Article 345 of the Constitution. It received the assent of the Governor on 27--10-1950 and came into force with effect from the date of its publication, namely 3-11-1950. Section 3 of the Act is reproduced below:
"3 (1 ). Subject as hereinafter provided, Hindi and Marathi shall be the official languages of the State for all purposes. (2 ). The State Government may, by notification, direct that in any specified area and with effect from any specified date Hindi or Marathi or both shall be used in respect of such official purposes as may be specified in the notification. " the notification which is challenged was issued by the State Government under sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Act and also under Section 558 of the Code of criminal Procedure, 1898, and Section 137 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which are reproduced below: "553. The State Government may determine what, for the purposes of this Code, shall be deemed to be the language of each Court within the territories administered by such Government, other than any High Court for a Part A State. " "137 (2 ). The State Government may declare what shall be the language of any such Court and in what character applications to and proceedings in such Courts shall be written. "
( 4 ) BESIDES challenging the validity of the notification, the vires of Section 3 of the madhya Pradesh Official Languages Act is also impugned in these proceedings. It is contended that the said section offends against Article 345 itself under which it has been enacted and is repugnant to Articles 19 (1) (a) and 850 of the constitution. As regards the notification, it is contended that it is hit by the doctrine delegata potestas non potest delegare i. e. , a delegated power cannot be delegated and offends against the equality before the law guaranteed under Article 14. It is also contended that since it trenches on items 2 and 13 of the concurrent list, it is invalid to the extent that it is repugnant to the provisions of the Codes of criminal and Civil Procedure. ( 5 ) THE petition, which is made by an advocate, is mainly directed against the use of Hindi and Marathi as the official languages of the Courts functioning within the state. It is urged that the sudden and enforced introduction of the regional languages in Court work has created tremendous difficulties in the way of litigants in the conduct of cases. It is mainly to remove this grievance that the petition has been made.
( 6 ) SUB-SECTION (3), Section 137, of the Code of Civil Procedure, permits the use of english by a party in any matter which the Code requires or allows him to do in writing, subject to his giving to the opposite party, unacquainted with English, a translation in the language of the Court, if he so desires. This is the only matter in which a party has a choice. Rule 8 (b) of the Rules and Orders (Civil) gives discretion to the presiding Judge to permi
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
