Supreme Court Urges Centre & States To Consider Publication Of Laws In All Regional Languages

Appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan submitted –

"There are tweaks that are necessary to be made in the legislations once they come through. I do not think even the Law Secretary feels that they have all the information required in the making of the law. This would create a very critical process, much like in the United Kingdom."

The Chief Justice interjected –

"In our domestic laws as well, there are certain provisions for consultation. For instance, with respect to town planning, environmental impact assessment. There are provisions for public hearings, public consultation, public notices."

Sankaranarayanan conceded that such provisions existed but proceeded to highlight their limitations and the lack of uniformity across different laws. The senior counsel reiterated –

"Our representatives may not have all the information. As lawyers, we argue in all sorts of cases in which we are no experts. This court also appoints amicus, experts, commissions – people who possess the requisite knowledge and data."

Justice Lalit enquired –

"Will such provision be directory or mandatory? If it is directory, it will be violated day in and day out."

Sankaranarayanan responded –

"As far as the Government is concerned, it can be mandatory."

The Chief Justice reproached –

"If it is mandatory, another line of jurisprudence will be created. That you can invalidate a law on this ground."

Sankaranarayanan quickly supplied –

"I do not think the law can be invalidated on this ground. That would not follow. But I would hope the government would take it in the right spirit."

Justice Lalit also asked whether there was a need to post draft legislations when bills were sent to consultative committees for examination in the existing legal framework and in light of the "devices and methodologies" that enabled the Members of the Parliament to have "inputs coming from the other strata of society". Repelling the contention, Sankaranarayanan argued –

"These are not mandatory. There are many bills that get passed without input from these committees. Furthermore, this would only supplement the inputs that are already received. Eventually, it would be an executive decision to publish a bill in the public domain. For instance, during the nine-Judge Bench hearing on the right to privacy [Justice KS Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1], one of the arguments made by the Centre is that we have a privacy bill in the pipeline. That promise has now consistently been made by the Government for six years. This bill still has not seen the light of day. Therefore, the proposed pre-consultative process would ensure greater transparency and the people would have some assurance. So, the next time, the Government tells us that there is a bill coming, we can point out that we have not seen it."

The senior counsel also added –

"The other problem is that legislations are published only in English or Hindi. Large parts of the country cannot understand these."

Justice Lalit pointed out –

"Wherever the participation of citizens or their inputs are required, the scope for it is kept open. But there are certain bills where secrecy and confidentiality must be maintained, such as the Finance Act."

Sankaranarayanan acknowledged that such exceptions might exist and said –

"We are not going to force the Government to publish those bills. But, for the most part…"

Ultimately, the Chief Justice agreed to direct the governments to consider only the second prayer. He orally pronounced –

"…We have heard Gopal Sankaranarayanan, learned Senior Advocate, in support of the petition. It is submitted by the learned counsel that if the draft legislations are put in the public domain, as suggested in the first prayer, the elected representatives in the Parliament and the State Assemblies would get benefitted via various inputs coming from the citizens, which ultimately will be benefitting public interest. At this stage, it must be said that there are certain legislations which contemplate the participation of the public at certain levels, like various town planning legislations. Wherever such public participation is contemplated and encouraged, the legislative provisions do make way for such participation. It would not be proper on our part to entertain a prayer to direct the government at the central or state levels, to publish draft legislations. It is entirely left to the concerned authorities or bodies to take stock of the situation and [make] a decision."

The Chief Justice added –

"As regards the second prayer, we do see some force in the submission that the people at large must have every facility to be aware of the legislations that would govern their conduct and day-to-day lives, and therefore, such legislation must be kept in the public domain in all regional languages. At this stage, we only express hope that the second prayer is looked into by whoever concerned and steps in that behalf shall be taken. With these observations, the instant writ petition is disposed of."

Case Title

Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India & Ors. [WP(C) No. 14/2021] | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 906

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ashwani Kumar Dubey, AOR Mr. Ashwini Kumar Upadhayay, Adv. Ms. Tanya Srivastav, Adv. Ms. Asha Upadhyay, Adv. Mr. Chandra Shekhar, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. R. Ventakaramani, Ld. AG Mr. M.K. Maroria, AOR