Uttarakhand High Court raised the question after an ADM replied in Hindi during a PIL hearing. The bench asked, “whether an officer of ADM level, who has no knowledge of English, can effectively control an executive position.”
Nainital: The Uttarakhand High Court recently questioned whether an officer who does not speak English fluently can effectively handle a high-level executive post. This issue came up during a hearing in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) on July 26 in Nainital.
The PIL was about the inclusion of names of outsiders in the voter list for the upcoming panchayat elections in Budhlakot gram sabha of Nainital district.
The case was heard by a division bench of Chief Justice Guhanathan Narendar and Justice Alok Mahra. During the hearing, the Additional District Magistrate (ADM) of Nainital appeared in person and responded to the court’s questions in Hindi.
When the judges asked why he did not speak in English, the officer explained that although he could understand English, he was not comfortable speaking it.
He said,
“he could understand the language he was unable to speak it fluently.”
This response led the court to raise concerns about whether someone in such a senior administrative role, who lacks fluency in English, can manage an important executive position effectively.
The bench directed both the State Election Commissioner and the Chief Secretary of Uttarakhand to look into the matter and determine if an ADM-level officer without English knowledge can perform his duties properly.
The court ordered both officials to appear via video conferencing at the next hearing on July 28 to respond.
The court said,
“whether an officer of ADM (Additional District Magistrate) level, who has no knowledge of English, can effectively control an executive position.”
The PIL, filed by Akash Bora, a resident of Budhlakot, claimed that 82 people listed in the village’s voter list were not actual residents and mostly came from places like Odisha, Delhi, Haridwar, and other districts including Haldwani and Nainital.
Bora had earlier approached the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM) regarding this issue. As a result, a fact-finding committee was set up, which found that at least 18 of these individuals were indeed outsiders.
However, even after the final voter list was released, the names of those 18 outsiders were not removed. Following this, the petitioner submitted an additional list of 30 more such names to the court.
Despite multiple complaints, the authorities allegedly did not take any steps. The PIL stated that no action was taken against these entries and that such inclusion could affect the fairness of the elections.
During the court proceedings, the ADM, who is also the Electoral Registration Officer for Nainital, told the court that these names were added based on entries in the family register.
The court, however, did not find this satisfactory. It pointed out that as per the Panchayati Raj Act, more weight should be given to documents like birth and death certificates rather than just relying on the family register.
The bench firmly asked the State Election Commission,
“on what basis these individuals were identified as residents of the area.”
The high court also took a serious view of the larger issue and noted that more than 25 such PILs related to panchayat election irregularities have already been filed.
It questioned the Election Commission over its process and criteria in identifying residents for the voter list.
READ MORE REPORTS ON SECTION 498A
