'Misconceived': Gujarat High Court Dismisses PIL On Use Of 'Gujarati' As Additional Language In HC Proceedings

The Gujarat High Court has DISMISSED as 'misconceived' a PIL plea seeking a direction to the state govt to implement the (then) Governor's 2012 decision authorizing the use of the Gujarati Language in addition to English in the court proceedings before the HC.

The PIL plea, which also challenged the October 2012 decision (taken on the administrative side) of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court rejecting the proposal to permit the use of the Gujarati Language, was moved last year by a Social Worker Rohit Jayantilal Patel through Senior Advocate Asim Pandya.

"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," Chief Justice Suita Agarwal remarked.

In response to this, Senior Advocate Asim Pandya submitted that the Supreme Court had no role in the matter and that the PIL plea was also challenging the resolution of the Cabinet Committee of 1965 introducing the role of the Chief Justice Of India in this matter (use of regional langue in the HC). He also argued that the High Court was competent to look into and adjudicate upon the challenge made to the decision of the CJI.

However, the High Court refused to grant the prayers sought in the matter.

Further, when the Senior Advocate Pandya sought to argue the matter and elaborate his submissions further, the High Court refused his prayer and proceeded to dictate the order in the matter.

"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," the order of the bench comprising Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Aniruddha P. Mayee stated.  

The background of the matter

In the alternative, the PIL plea also sought a direction to the State Government to take a fresh decision under Article 348 (2) of the Constitution of India under representations made before it in this regard.