Gujarat High Court Dismisses PIL on Use of Gujarati Language in Court Proceedings
The Gujarat High Court has dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that sought a directive for the state government to implement the 2012 decision by the then Governor, which authorized the use of the Gujarati language in addition to English in the High Court proceedings. The PIL, which also contested the October 2012 decision of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court that declined the proposal for the use of Gujarati, was filed by Social Worker Rohit Jayantilal Patel and represented by Senior Advocate Asim Pandya.
Chief Justice Suita Agarwal remarked,
“Even a decision of the CJI taken on the administrative side is binding on the High Court so if you have any kind of dispute regarding an administrative decision of the CJI, you have to go to the Supreme Court. We will not be able to help you. We can’t issue any direction after the Supreme Court has considered the matter and the CJI has refused to give concurrence to this.”
In response, Senior Advocate Asim Pandya argued that the Supreme Court had no involvement in the matter. He further challenged the 1965 Cabinet Committee resolution that introduced the role of the Chief Justice of India concerning the use of regional languages in the High Court. Pandya contended that the High Court had the authority to review and decide on the challenge to the Chief Justice of India’s decision.
However, the High Court declined to grant the requests made in the PIL. When Advocate Pandya attempted to further elaborate on his arguments, the High Court denied his request and began dictating the order.
“The issue, if any, can be raised by the writ petitioner would not fall within the realm of jurisdiction of this court. Once the advice of the Chief Justice of India was sought and a decision was taken by the full court, the only remedy for the petitioner to approach the Supreme Court. The writ petition is dismissed as misconceived,”
stated the order by the bench, which included Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Aniruddha P. Mayee.
The PIL also alternatively sought a directive for the State Government to reconsider under Article 348 (2) of the Constitution, based on representations made to it. Article 348 (2) permits the Governor of a State, with the prior consent of the President, to authorize the use of Hindi or any other official state language in the High Court proceedings.
The PIL emphasized that recognizing only English as the official language in high court proceedings restricts the choice of lawyers and adversely affects the rights of lawyers not proficient in English, consequently impacting the common man.
It’s noteworthy that in 2012, after the state assembly and the cabinet committee approved the use of Gujarati in the High Court, the proposal, post the State Governor’s approval, was forwarded to the Supreme Court, which subsequently disapproved it.