Supreme Court advocate writes to President, PM, and CJI over Uttarakhand HC’s remark questioning ADM Vivek Rai’s fitness to serve for not speaking English, sparking nationwide outrage.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: A Supreme Court advocate has written to the President of India, Prime Minister Narendra Modi, and Chief Justice of India, raising concerns over a controversial observation made by the Uttarakhand High Court during a public interest litigation (PIL).
The PIL, titled Akash Bora vs State of Uttarakhand & Others, was heard on July 18, 2025, by a bench comprising Chief Justice G. Narendar and Justice Alok Mahra. During the proceedings, Vivek Rai, who currently serves as Additional District Magistrate (ADM) and Electoral Registration Officer in Nainital, responded to the court’s questions in Hindi, stating that he could understand English but was not fluent in speaking it.
This led the Court to express doubt about Rai’s suitability for an executive post, and it directed the State Election Commissioner and the Chief Secretary to examine whether an officer with limited spoken English ability should continue in such a role. The order came in the context of alleged irregularities in the preparation of electoral rolls, where officials reportedly relied only on the Family Register maintained by the Gram Panchayat, a document not listed under the Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj (Registration of Electors) Rules, 1994
Advocate Aditya Kashyap, a practicing lawyer in the Supreme Court, took strong exception to the High Court’s remark. In a letter dated August 3, 2025, he called the observation “extremely regrettable” and “against judicial dignity and administrative self-respect.” The letter, also marked to the Governor of Uttarakhand and the Union Law Minister, urges immediate institutional correction.
Kashyap emphasized that fluency in English is not a constitutional requirement for public officers, especially if they are lawfully discharging their duties in Hindi, the official language of both India (as per Article 343) and Uttarakhand (as per Article 345).
“If the Additional District Magistrate can understand English and implement court orders, then not being able to speak English is not an administrative fault,”
Kashyap wrote
In support of his argument, Kashyap cited:
- Article 343(1) – Declaring Hindi in the Devanagari script as the official language of the Union.
- Article 345 – Allowing states to adopt any language used in the state as their official language.
- Article 348(2) – Permitting state laws to be published in the regional language with the President’s consent.
ALSO READ: Chhattisgarh Govt. Replaces ‘Adopted Son’ With ‘Adopted Child’ to Remove Gender Bias
He pointed out that Uttarakhand has adopted Hindi as its official language, and therefore, conducting official work in Hindi is not only lawful but should be encouraged.
Kashyap posed a crucial counterpoint,
“If a judge who does not speak Hindi can be appointed in a Hindi-speaking state like Uttarakhand, why should an officer be penalized for not speaking English?”
The letter calls for the withdrawal of the High Court’s remark and a public clarification affirming that English proficiency is not a prerequisite for executive functioning in India. Further, it urges that officers who perform their duties in Hindi should not only be respected but publicly honored for upholding the dignity of India’s constitutional language.
“Speaking Hindi is not a crime, it is the soul of India,” the letter reads. “It should not be considered a disqualification but a symbol of dignity.”
Click Here to Read More Reports On Language Bias
