Litigants appearing before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (KAT) are legally entitled to file their pleadings and applications in the Kannada language, the High Court of Karnataka has clarified in a significant ruling. A Division Bench comprising Justice Ashok S. Kinagi and Justice Subramanya Rangarao at the Kalaburagi Bench set aside a June 2025 order of the tribunal that had previously rejected a candidate's application on the sole ground that it was drafted in Kannada, thereby affirming the linguistic rights of citizens seeking administrative justice.

The dispute originated when the petitioner, Suryakanth, a photographer from Kalaburagi, approached the tribunal to contest an additional selection list published by the Karnataka Public Service Commission . Seeking to exercise his right to utilize the state's official language, the petitioner submitted his original application in Kannada. However, the tribunal declined to entertain the filing, relying on Rule 3 of the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1986 , which it interpreted as mandating that all initial applications must be presented exclusively in the English language. This rigid interpretation led the tribunal to return the petition, forcing the petitioner to seek judicial intervention from the High Court.

Upon review, the High Court identified a critical oversight in the tribunal’s procedural assessment, specifically its failure to account for Rule 9 of the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal Rules of Practice, 1990 . The Division Bench noted that the 1990 Rules were specifically enacted to regulate internal procedure and ensure the efficient, fair, and expeditious disposal of cases. Clause (iii) of Rule 9 provides an explicit mandate regarding the documentation allowed in the tribunal.

The Bench highlighted the relevant provision, noting: “All pleadings , affidavits , memoranda and list of documents and documents presented to, or filed in the Tribunal shall be fairly and legibly typewritten (in English or Kannada) on durable paper of Metric A4 Size.” By equating an application to a pleading, the High Court determined that there was no statutory basis for the tribunal to prohibit the use of Kannada.

Clarifying Procedural Ambiguities

The High Court’s ruling provides essential clarity on the interplay between the 1986 Procedure Rules and the 1990 Rules of Practice. While the tribunal had argued that the 1986 Rules established English as the primary language of the institution, the High Court emphasized that this did not equate to a total exclusion of the Kannada language. The court pointed out that the 1986 framework itself allows parties to file documents in Kannada and grants the bench the discretion to permit its use during the proceedings , provided the final judgment is rendered in English.

Addressing the definition of the term " proceedings ," the Bench utilized standard legal lexicography to justify its inclusion of the initial filing stage within the scope of permissible language usage. Citing legal definitions that describe proceedings as the "regular and orderly progression of a law suit, including all acts and events between the time of commencement and the entry of judgment," the court held that the filing of an application is inherently part of these proceedings .

“There is no complete embargo on the part of the litigants to file an application in Kannada. The parties can file an application in Kannada in terms of Rule 9(iii) of 1990 Rules and the 1986 Rules provides that the Bench, in its discretion, may permit the use of Kannada in the proceedings , subject to the condition that the final order should be in English,” the High Court observed in its judgment.

Strengthening Access to Justice

The implications of this ruling extend far beyond the specific case of the petitioner. By validating the use of Kannada for filings, the High Court has reaffirmed that procedural rules in quasi-judicial bodies are designed to facilitate access to justice rather than act as bureaucratic barriers. Legal practitioners noted that the tribunal's previous stance had effectively marginalized litigants who were not proficient in English, creating an inequitable environment for those seeking redress against government bodies like the Karnataka Public Service Commission .

The High Court was particularly critical of the tribunal’s failure to examine the 1990 Rules, characterizing the error as a fundamental oversight. The court stated, “Such a basic aspect was not properly considered by the Tribunal and committed an error in passing the impugned order .” This acknowledgment serves as a reminder to administrative bodies that their procedural discretion must be exercised in a manner that aligns with the broader legislative intent of ensuring constitutional and linguistic rights.

Operative Directions and Future Practice

Following the detailed examination of the legal framework, the High Court took decisive action to rectify the procedural error. The Bench quashed the tribunal’s order dated June 5, 2025 , effectively restoring the petitioner's original application to its rightful place on the tribunal’s files. The tribunal has been directed to proceed with the adjudication of the case in accordance with the law, now acknowledging that the Kannada language filing is legally sufficient.

For the administrative tribunal, this order signals a return to a more inclusive procedural standard. Moving forward, the tribunal must accept pleadings and applications submitted in either English or Kannada, provided they meet the technical formatting requirements specified in the 1990 Rules. This standardization is expected to streamline the intake process and ensure that administrative oversight is accessible to all citizens, regardless of their primary language of communication. The matter now returns to the tribunal, where the original dispute will be heard on its merits, free from the previous linguistic constraints that had hindered the commencement of the legal action.