Supreme Court Dismisses PIL: No Hindi As Official Language Mandate

• The Supreme Court dismissed a public interest litigation seeking a commission to examine Hindi as an official court language.
• A bench led by CJI Surya Kant stated that such measures are implemented through gradual reforms, not judicial orders.
• The Court highlighted its existing efforts, including providing brief report descriptions in Hindi and plans for other regional languages.
• Justice V Mohana questioned the court's power to order what effectively amounted to a constitutional amendment.
• Article 348(1)(a) of the Constitution mandates English as the language for all Supreme Court and High Court proceedings.

Chief Justice Kant emphasized that changes of this nature are typically implemented as part of broader, gradual reforms, rather than through immediate judicial directives.

The Supreme Court of India recently rejected a public interest litigation (PIL) that sought judicial intervention to establish a commission. This proposed body would have been tasked with exploring the feasibility of adopting Hindi as an official language for the apex court. The dismissal occurred on a Friday, with a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana presiding over the matter.

The judicial panel unequivocally stated that such significant policy shifts are not within the purview of court orders. Chief Justice Kant emphasized that changes of this nature are typically implemented as part of broader, gradual reforms, rather than through immediate judicial directives. He articulated that these processes unfold slowly and in a phased manner, indicating that the judiciary itself is already engaged in related initiatives.

Chief Justice Kant further elaborated on the Supreme Court's ongoing efforts to integrate regional languages into its operations. He highlighted that the Court has begun providing brief summaries of all its reports in Hindi, signaling a commitment to linguistic diversity. The Chief Justice also indicated plans to extend this practice to other regional languages in due course.

This approach, according to CJI Kant, aims to uphold and respect the diverse linguistic culture of the nation. The Court's stance suggests a preference for an evolutionary, administrative path to language inclusion, rather than a revolutionary, judicially mandated one, ensuring that the integrity and cultural significance of all regional languages are acknowledged.

During the proceedings, the petitioner's counsel pressed for at least the establishment of a commission to study the matter, reiterating the request for a directive to constitute such a body. However, Justice Mohana questioned the court's authority to issue such an order, pointing out that the petitioner was effectively seeking a constitutional amendment, a power not vested in the judiciary.

The Constitution of India, specifically Article 348(1)(a), explicitly stipulates that all proceedings conducted in the Supreme Court and in every High Court must be in English. Furthermore, Article 348(2) includes a provision stating that the Governor of a State may, though the source text does not complete this particular clause. Despite the petitioner's persistent appeals for a commission, the Court remained disinclined to entertain the PIL, leading to its ultimate dismissal.

The Supreme Court's dismissal underscores a judicial reluctance to overstep its constitutional boundaries by dictating policy changes that typically fall under the legislative or executive domain. The ruling reinforces the principle that fundamental shifts, such as altering the official language of the highest courts, require a comprehensive reform process rather than immediate judicial decrees.

This decision highlights the ongoing tension between public demands for linguistic accessibility and the established constitutional and procedural frameworks governing the judiciary. While acknowledging the importance of regional languages, the Court has clearly indicated that the pathway for their broader integration into judicial proceedings must align with existing legal structures and evolve through considered, phased reforms.

Source: Reporting based on recent court proceedings.