English Version of a Law is the Authoritative Text in Case of Conflict with Hindi Translation: Allahabad High Court Citing Article 348(3) - 2025-09-02

English Version of Law Prevails Over Hindi Translation, Allahabad High Court Reiterates Constitutional Mandate

Lucknow, UP - The Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, has dismissed a writ petition seeking consideration for a government post, firmly holding that in the event of a discrepancy between the Hindi and English versions of a law or rule, the English version shall be considered the authoritative text. Justice Manish Mathur, citing Article 348(3) of the Constitution of India and established legal precedents, rejected the petitioner's plea which was based on the Hindi version of the service rules.

Background of the Case

The case, Maya Shukla @ Maya Mishra vs Secy. / Examination Controller Lower Subordinate Service Selection Commission Lko. , was brought by a candidate seeking to participate in the selection process for the post of "cutting swing." The petitioner, Maya Shukla, argued that her eligibility should be determined based on the U.P. Audhyogik Shikshan Sansthan (Anudeshak) Sewa Niyamavali 2014, specifically the Hindi version of the rules for calculating merit based on high school and I.T.I. certificate marks.

Arguments from Both Sides

Petitioner's Argument: The counsel for the petitioner contended that the Hindi version of the service rules, specifically Rule 16(3)(ka), supported her claim for consideration in the selection process.

Respondent's Argument: The counsel for the Lower Subordinate Service Selection Commission countered that the petitioner's candidature was not considered because the selection was governed by the advertisement issued in November 2015, which followed the English version of the rules, namely the UP Industrial Training Institutes (Instructors) Service Rules, 2014. They highlighted a clear "dichotomy" between the Hindi and English texts regarding the calculation of merit and argued that the English version must prevail as per constitutional law.

The Core Legal Question: Hindi vs. English Text

The central issue before the court was which version of the service rules—Hindi or English—should prevail when there is a clear contradiction between them. The court's analysis hinged on the interpretation of Article 348 of the Constitution of India.

Constitutional and Judicial Precedents

Justice Mathur embarked on a detailed examination of Article 348, which governs the language to be used in the Supreme Court, High Courts, and for Acts and Bills. The court underscored the significance of Article 348(3), which states:

"...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."

The court found this provision to be unambiguous. It further relied on key judgments to solidify its position:

• Prabhat Kumar Sharma versus Union Public Service Commission (2006): The Supreme Court held that despite the Official Languages Act, 1963, English continues to be the authoritative text for Acts of Parliament.
• Smt. Ram Rati and others versus Gram Samaj Jehwa (1974): A five-judge Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court had previously ruled that when a state law is passed in a language other than English, its English translation shall be regarded as the authoritative text and will prevail over the vernacular version.

The court noted that the judgments cited by the petitioner either did not refer to Article 348 or overlooked clause (3) of the article, thereby weakening their applicability to the case at hand.

Pivotal Excerpts from the Judgment

In its reasoning, the court observed:

"In the considered opinion of this court, Clause 3 of Article 348 of the Constitution of India therefore clearly prescribes an aspect that in case of any dichotomy between the vernacular language and English language, it is the English language which will be considered to be authoritative."

Reinforcing this conclusion, the court stated:

"In view of aforesaid facts & circumstances, it is quite evident that not only in terms of Article 348(3) of Constitution of India, but also in terms of judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court and Full Bench decision of this court, it would be the English version of any Hindi translation of a bill or order or service regulations which would prevail."

Final Verdict and Implications

Finding that the petitioner was seeking a benefit available only under the Hindi version of the rules, which contradicts the authoritative English text, the High Court found no merit in the petition.

The petition was dismissed at the admission stage itself, with the court directing both parties to bear their own costs. This judgment serves as a strong reiteration of the constitutional principle that the English text of legislation remains the final authority in case of linguistic ambiguity or conflict, ensuring uniformity and clarity in legal interpretation.