Can a court order that its own official language be changed to Hindi? No, the Supreme Court has held, dismissing a plea to that effect. Such change, it said, cannot come through judicial orders but through reform, in a phased manner, and would effectively require a constitutional amendment. The Chief Justice noted that the Court is already introducing language reforms, while pledging to respect regional languages.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court has dismissed a plea seeking directions to make Hindi the official language of the Supreme Court [Brahmeshwar Nath Mishra v. Union of India].
A Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana heard the plea, in which the petitioner sought, in the alternative, a direction to the Union to constitute a commission to make recommendations on the use of Hindi as the official language of the Supreme Court.
The hearing
Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Union could be directed to constitute a commission, and that the relief was sought on the basis of certain constitutional provisions. The CJI, however, observed that the Supreme Court had already been introducing language-related reforms gradually:
“We are now giving a brief description of all the reports in Hindi. We will start with other regional languages. We will maintain the culture. We will respect other regional languages also,” the CJI said.
Emphasising that such changes could not be brought about through judicial orders, the CJI observed:
“These things do not happen through court orders. They happen as part of reforms, slowly and in a phased manner. Such things we are doing.”
When the counsel nevertheless pressed for the constitution of a commission, Justice Mohana pointed out that the relief sought would effectively require a constitutional amendment:
“You are asking for a constitutional amendment. How can a court do that?”
As the counsel again pressed the request, the CJI concluded the hearing by dismissing the plea.
The constitutional position
The language of the higher judiciary is governed by Article 348 of the Constitution. Article 348(1)(a) provides that, until Parliament by law otherwise provides, all proceedings in the Supreme Court and in every High Court shall be conducted in English. The effect is that English remains the language of the Supreme Court unless and until Parliament, exercising its power under that Article, legislates to the contrary; the choice of the court’s language is thus committed, by the constitutional scheme, to the legislature rather than to the judiciary acting on its own.
It was against that backdrop that the Bench declined to issue the directions sought. A judicial order making Hindi the Supreme Court’s official language, or mandating a commission towards that end, would cut across the mechanism the Constitution itself lays down, under which such a change is a matter for Parliament and, given the entrenchment of English in Article 348, potentially for constitutional amendment.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Initiates Translation Of Judgments Into Regional Languages
Why it matters
The order reflects a clear line between what a court can do by judicial fiat and what belongs to the domain of policy and legislation. The language in which the highest court functions is a question with wide ramifications, for access to justice, for litigants and lawyers across a linguistically diverse country, and for the balance between the national language debate and the country’s many regional languages. The Constitution assigns the resolution of that question to Parliament under Article 348, and the Court’s refusal to pre-empt that process by an order is consistent with the separation of powers.
At the same time, the CJI’s remarks indicate that the issue of language accessibility is being addressed through reform rather than adjudication. The Court’s steps, providing descriptions of its reports in Hindi and moving towards other regional languages, and the broader initiative to translate judgments into regional languages, are aimed at making the court’s work more accessible without displacing English as the language of proceedings. The CJI’s assurance that regional languages would be respected signals a plural, phased approach rather than the elevation of any single language by judicial command.
The dismissal decides only that the specific relief sought, a court-mandated switch to Hindi or a court-directed commission, cannot be granted; it does not pronounce on the desirability of greater use of Indian languages in the courts, which the Court itself is pursuing through reform. The question of the official language of the higher judiciary, and any move to alter the position under Article 348, remains one for Parliament to consider in accordance with the constitutional scheme.
Case Title: Brahmeshwar Nath Mishra v. Union of India [Diary No. 5290/2026]
Bench: Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana, Supreme Court of India
Status: Plea seeking Hindi as the official language of the Supreme Court, or a commission to recommend it, dismissed. Court held such change cannot be effected by judicial order and would require legislative action; Article 348 mandates English until Parliament provides otherwise.