Kannada Applications are permitted before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal under its own rules, the Karnataka High Court has held, setting aside a tribunal order that refused to accept a litigant’s application in Kannada and faulting the tribunal for overlooking a basic provision.
Kalaburagi: The Karnataka High Court has held that litigants can file pleadings, including applications, in Kannada before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal (KAT), and has quashed a June 2025 tribunal order that rejected a Kalaburagi photographer’s request to file his original application in Kannada [Suryakanth v. Secretary, Karnataka Public Service Commission & Ors.].
A Division Bench of Justice Ashok S Kinagi and Justice Subramanya Rangarao, sitting at the Kalaburagi Bench, allowed the writ petition on October 7, 2026.
The case
The petitioner, Suryakanth, a 44-year-old photographer from Kalaburagi, approached the KAT in a matter involving the Karnataka Public Service Commission and sought permission to file his original application in Kannada. The tribunal turned the request down, relying on Rule 3 of the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1986, which prescribes English as the language of the tribunal.
Before the High Court, the petitioner argued that Rule 3 itself allows documents to be filed in Kannada and lets the Bench permit the use of Kannada in proceedings, so long as the final order is in English. The State opposed the plea and contended that pleadings before the tribunal had to be in English.
What the Court said
The Bench read Rule 3 of the 1986 Rules together with Rule 9(iii) of the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal Rules of Practice, 1990. Rule 3 allows parties to file documents in Kannada and empowers the tribunal to permit Kannada in its proceedings, subject to the final order being in English. Rule 9(iii) says that all pleadings, affidavits, memoranda, lists of documents and documents presented to the tribunal must be typewritten in English or Kannada. An application, the Court held, is a pleading within the meaning of Rule 9(iii).
“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.”
On the petitioner’s filing, the Bench said:
“As such, the petitioner has rightly filed the application in Kannada language in terms of clause (iii) of Rule 9 of Rules of 1990.”
Tribunal faulted
The High Court found that the KAT had not considered the 1990 Rules at all before rejecting the application:
“Such a basic aspect was not properly considered by the Tribunal and committed an error in passing the impugned order.”
The directions
The Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the tribunal’s order, allowed the petitioner’s interlocutory application seeking permission to file his pleadings in Kannada, and restored his original application to the tribunal’s file. The KAT has been directed to decide the original application in accordance with law.
Why the judgment matters
The ruling settles a practical question for government employees and job aspirants who approach the KAT: they are not shut out because they cannot draft in English. The tribunal’s own rules expressly allow pleadings in English or Kannada, and a rule naming English as the language of the tribunal does not override that express permission. The only English requirement that remains firm is for the tribunal’s final order.
More broadly, the judgment reflects the principle that procedural rules exist to secure access to justice, not to bar it. Where a statutory scheme allows a regional language, a tribunal cannot read it narrowly to turn away a litigant, and a failure to consider the governing rule is an error that a writ court will correct.
Case Title: Suryakanth v. Secretary, Karnataka Public Service Commission & Ors. [Writ Petition No. 200507 of 2026 (S-KAT)]
Neutral Citation: 2026:KHC-K:10920-DB
Bench: Justice Ashok S Kinagi and Justice Subramanya Rangarao, High Court of Karnataka, Kalaburagi Bench
Date of Judgment: October 7, 2026
Appearances: Advocate Shankar Kattimani for the petitioner