PIL In Gujarat HC Seeks Implementation Of Governor's Decision Authorising Use Of 'Gujarati' As Add'l Language In HC

A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea has been moved before the Gujarat High Court seeking a direction to the state government 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 Gujarat High Court.

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

It may be noted that Article 348 (2) allows the Governor of a State, with the previous consent of the President, to authorize the use of the Hindi language, or any other language used for any official purposes of the State, in proceedings in the High Court having its principal seat in that State.

The PIL plea argues that freedom of expression available to the public under the Constitution means freedom to express effectively through the lawyer of one's choice and recognizing English as the only official language in high court proceedings, limits the choice of a lawyer from amongst a few high court lawyers only and thereby adversely affect rights to the practice of lawyers not well conversant with English and consequently common men.

The plea has been moved by a Social Worker Rohit Jayantilal Patel through Senior Advocate Asim Pandya, who had, in August 2022, in the capacity of the president of Gujarat High Court Advocates' Association (GHCAA) moved a representation before the State Governor, seeking his specific authorization under Article 348(2) to allow the use of Gujarati language in addition to English in the court proceedings before the Gujarat High Court.

Significantly, the Petitioner has also challenged 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). Further, the decision of the Supreme Court, taken in October 2012, has also been challenged in the plea wherein the proposal of permitting the use of the Gujarati Language had been rejected. 

Essentially, in 2012, after the state assembly and the cabinet committee gave their nod for the use of the Gujarati language in the High Court, the matter was sent to the State's Governor, and after her approval, the matter was sent to the Supreme Court for inviting its comment and the Supreme Court gave its disapproval.

In this regard, while appearing before the High Court today, Senior Advocate Pandya argued that in such a matter, the Supreme Court or the High Court can't have any say as the Constitution does not provide for any role of the Judiciary in this matter.

"Once Articles 348 and 344 of the Constitution of India do not contemplate any consultation or concurrence with the Supreme Court of India in the matter of permitting any of the official languages mentioned in the VIII Schedule as an additional language to English in a high court proceeding, can a democratically taken decision of the entire state assembly, approved by the council of ministers and duly authorized by the Governor be set at naught by the Supreme Court of India acting administratively?," the plea questions.

"Bringing the role of the Supreme Court in the matter of Article 348(2) indirectly by the decision of the Cabinet Committee is ex facie ultra vires and unconstitutional as the same has been taken under a misconception of the status of high courts being a court of record and without understanding the legal position that high courts are not administratively subordinate to the Supreme Court," the plea avers.

However, the Petitioner has submitted that he doesn't have the official copy of the Supreme Court's decision and hence, the plea also seeks a direction to the respondents to produce a copy of the SC's decision. 

Having heard the matter today briefly, the bench of Chief Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Ashutosh J. Shastri posted the matter for further hearing on December 1, however, the Court did not issue notice to the respondents.