Enacting Laws In English Will Not Deter Growth Of Regional Language: High Court To Kerala Govt

The Kerala High Court on Friday emphasized the need for publishing statutes and rules in English language, as envisaged in Article 348(3) of the Constitution. 

Article 348(3) permits usage of any local language other than English for use in the Legislature of the State but requires that a translation of the same in the English language be published under the authority of the Governor of the State in the Official Gazette of that State which shall be deemed to be the authoritative text thereof. 

Relying upon decisions such as Thanga Dorai v. Chancellor, Kerala University (1995), and Murali Purushothaman v. State of Kerala (2002), which emphasized upon the requirement of of an English text for a Bill, Act, or Ordinance, Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas explained,

"When a State like Kerala opens its invitation for people from all over the world to invest, it would be incongruous if the laws are incomprehensible to them. The importance of English as an international language of communication and comprehension within and outside the Country cannot be ignored. Parochial considerations have to be kept aside while contemplating growth and development of the State. Enacting laws in English as mandated by the Constitution in a diverse country like India, will not have any bearing on the growth of the regional language. On the other hand, it can enhance the growth potential of the State as an investment destination with better awareness about its laws. Therefore, this Court reminds the State Government to abide by the Constitutional obligation to prepare the texts of all Statutes, Rules and other enactments in English, lest this Court be compelled to issue appropriate directions in that regard". 

The Court in this case was dealing with a plea by the owners of certain land in Kottayam, who sought to exclude their property from the category of ‘Park and Open space’ as stipulated in the Structural Plan/Master Plan for Kottayam. 

It is the petitioners' case that the Municipality ought to have acquired the land for establishing the said park, which they had failed to, even after the lapse of two years from the date the Master Plan came into operation. The petitioners submitted that it was in such a circumstance that they issued purchase notices under section 67(1) of the Kerala Town and Country Planning Act, 2016 ('Act, 2016'). 

The petitioners contended that although the notices had been served on the respondents on December 2, 2022, the same had not evoked any response, and thus, the statutory scheme contemplated under the said provision would apply. They added that their applications for building permits would have to be considered without regard to the Master Plan. 

The respondents on the other hand, argued that since the property was earmarked for ‘Park and Open Space’, no construction could be permitted, and that the petitioners would have to get approval from the Chief Town Planner/the District Town Planner, in order to carry out constructions, which is not seen to be done in the present case. It was contended that the notice submitted by the petitioners was not a purchase notice, as contemplated by the Act, and that in the absence of a purchase notice in the prescribed form, the Municipality would be under no obligation to consider such a notice.

The Court in this case noted that although the properties of the petitioners had been designated for compulsory acquisition under the Master Plan, the Municipality had failed to take any steps in that regard within two years from the date on whicht the Master Plan came into operation. 

It further ascertained that although the Act, 2016, requires the purchase notice to be issued ‘in the manner as may be prescribed’ admittedly, no format for notice had been prescribed. 

The Court added in this regard that two Rules had been framed only in Malayalam language, namely, the 'Kerala Town and Country Planning Detailed Town Planning Scheme Formulation and Permission Rules, 2021', and the 'Kerala Town and Country Planning (Formulation of Master Plan and Grant of Permission) Rules, 2021', neither of which prescribes any form for the purchase notice. 

It thus proceeded to lay down that the failure of the rule making Authority to prescribe a form as mandated by the Rules cannot deprive the constitutional and statutory right of an owner of a property to use his land, particularly when there is substantial compliance of the requirements of the Statute. 

"The substantive nature of section 67 of the Act cannot be controlled by the procedural requirement of issuing a ‘notice in the prescribed manner’, especially when the Rules do not prescribe a form for notice. If the form of notice as contemplated by the Statute has not been prescribed by the Rules, the parties are at liberty to issue a notice conveying the intent and purpose of a notice contemplated under the Statute. The absence of a prescribed form cannot deprive the constitutional and statutory right of an owner of a property to use his land. Failure of the rule making authority to perform their obligations under the Statute cannot be a burden on the owner of a property," the Court declared. 

The Court also reminded the Government of the Constitutional requirement for providing English language text, simultaneous with the introduction and passing of the law and the Rules. 

 Taking note that the petitioners had already issued purchase notices, the Court held that the same would be deemed as notices issued as per Section 67 of the Act, since no form had been prescribed for such notice. 

It thereby directed the Secretary of the Kottayam Municipality to process the applications for building permit submitted by the petitioners, as expeditiously as possible, within the time limit prescribed under law, without reference to the Master Plan of Kottayam.

The plea was thus disposed. 

Counsel for the Petitioners: Senior Advocate V.V. Asokan, and Advocates K.I. Mayankutty Mather, T.K. Sreekala, and S. Parvathi

Counsel for the Respondents: Senior Government Pleader K. Amminikutty and Standing Counsel for Kottayam Municipality C.S. Manilal

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 683