The Law Commission of India has submitted its 216th Report on “Non-feasibility of introduction of Hindi as compulsory language in the Supreme Court of India”
The Law Commission of India has submitted to the Government of India, its 216th Report on “Non-feasibility of introduction of Hindi as compulsory language in the Supreme Court of India”. The Hon’ble Chairman of the Commission, Dr. Justice AR. Lakshmanan, former Supreme Court Judge, forwarded the said report to the Hon’ble Union Law Minister, Dr. H.R.Bhardwaj, on 17th December, 2008.
The Law Commission received a reference from the Department of Legal Affairs, Ministry of Law & Justice which forwarded a copy of the note dated 29.3.2006 from Joint Secretary & Legislative Counsel, Legislative Department along with a copy of the recommendations of the Committee of Parliament on Official Language to obtain the views of Law Commission of India on the recommendations of the said Committee made in its Report at S.No.16.8(d) and 16.8(e) stated under Resolution No. 11011/5/2003-OL (Research) dated 13.7.2005 of the Department of Official Language, Ministry of Home Affairs.
Paragraphs 16.8(d) & (e) of the report of the said Committee envisage that Article 348 of the Constitution may be amended to enable the Legislative Department to undertake original drafting in Hindi. After the amendment of Article 348 of the Constitution, High Courts/Supreme Court should be asked to start delivering their judgments and decrees etc. in Hindi so that large number of Government Departments, who are carrying out judicial/ quasi-judicial functions, could be able to deliver orders in Hindi. At present, these departments are unable to pass orders in Hindi, because the appeal against their orders in High Courts/Supreme Court would have to be conducted in English.
The Law Commission addressed letters to some of the retired Chief Justices and Judges of the Supreme Court of India, Senior Advocates from different parts of India and also from the different Bar Associations in different States regarding recommendations of the Committee of Parliament on Official Language on the proposal to amend article 348 of the Constitution of India.
In response to the letter, the Law Commission has received written responses from former Chief Justices of the Supreme Court and Judges of the High Courts, Senior Advocates, High Court Advocates’ Associations on the said proposal. The Commission has deeply gone into the views so obtained and has unanimously recommended that -
i) Language is a highly emotional issue for the citizens of any nation. It has a great unifying force and is a powerful instrument for national integration. No language should be thrust on any section of the people against their will since it is likely to become counter-productive.
ii) It is not merely a vehicle of thought and expression, but for Judges at the higher level, it is an integral part of their decision-making process. Judges have to hear and understand the submissions of both the sides, apply the law to adjust equities. Arguments are generally made in higher courts in English and the basic literature under the Indian system is primarily based on English and American text books and case laws. Thus, Judges at the higher level should be left free to evolve their own pattern of delivering judgments.
iii) It is particularly important to note that in view of the national transfer policy in respect of the High Court Judges, if any such Judge is compelled to deliver judgments in a language with which he is not well-versed, it might become extremely difficult for him to work judicially. On transfer from one part of the country to another, a High Court Judge is not expected to learn a new language at his age and to apply the same in delivering judgments.
iv) At any rate no language should be thrust upon the Judges of the higher judiciary and they should be left free to deliver their judgments in the language they prefer. It is important to remember that every citizen, every Court has the right to understand the law laid down finally by the Apex Court and at present one should appreciate that such a language is only English.
v) The use of English language also facilitates the movement of lawyers from High Courts to the Apex Court since they are not confronted with any linguistic problems and English remains the language at both the levels. Any survey of the society in general or its cross-sections will clearly substantiate the above proposition which does not admit of much debate, particularly in the present political, social and economic scenario.
vi) It may, however, be admitted that in so far as legislative drafting is concerned, every legislation although authoritatively enacted in English may have a Hindi authoritative translation along with the same at the central level. Same analogy may be applied even in respect of executive actions at the central level, but the higher judiciary should not be subjected to any kind of even persuasive change in the present societal context.
The Law Commission of India has submitted to the Government of India, its 216th Report on “Non-feasibility of introduction of Hindi as compulsory language in the Supreme Court of India”. The Hon’ble Chairman of the Commission, Dr. Justice AR. Lakshmanan, former Supreme Court Judge, forwarded the said report to the Hon’ble Union Law Minister, Dr. H.R.Bhardwaj, on 17th December, 2008.
The Law Commission received a reference from the Department of Legal Affairs, Ministry of Law & Justice which forwarded a copy of the note dated 29.3.2006 from Joint Secretary & Legislative Counsel, Legislative Department along with a copy of the recommendations of the Committee of Parliament on Official Language to obtain the views of Law Commission of India on the recommendations of the said Committee made in its Report at S.No.16.8(d) and 16.8(e) stated under Resolution No. 11011/5/2003-OL (Research) dated 13.7.2005 of the Department of Official Language, Ministry of Home Affairs.
Paragraphs 16.8(d) & (e) of the report of the said Committee envisage that Article 348 of the Constitution may be amended to enable the Legislative Department to undertake original drafting in Hindi. After the amendment of Article 348 of the Constitution, High Courts/Supreme Court should be asked to start delivering their judgments and decrees etc. in Hindi so that large number of Government Departments, who are carrying out judicial/ quasi-judicial functions, could be able to deliver orders in Hindi. At present, these departments are unable to pass orders in Hindi, because the appeal against their orders in High Courts/Supreme Court would have to be conducted in English.
The Law Commission addressed letters to some of the retired Chief Justices and Judges of the Supreme Court of India, Senior Advocates from different parts of India and also from the different Bar Associations in different States regarding recommendations of the Committee of Parliament on Official Language on the proposal to amend article 348 of the Constitution of India.
In response to the letter, the Law Commission has received written responses from former Chief Justices of the Supreme Court and Judges of the High Courts, Senior Advocates, High Court Advocates’ Associations on the said proposal. The Commission has deeply gone into the views so obtained and has unanimously recommended that -
i) Language is a highly emotional issue for the citizens of any nation. It has a great unifying force and is a powerful instrument for national integration. No language should be thrust on any section of the people against their will since it is likely to become counter-productive.
ii) It is not merely a vehicle of thought and expression, but for Judges at the higher level, it is an integral part of their decision-making process. Judges have to hear and understand the submissions of both the sides, apply the law to adjust equities. Arguments are generally made in higher courts in English and the basic literature under the Indian system is primarily based on English and American text books and case laws. Thus, Judges at the higher level should be left free to evolve their own pattern of delivering judgments.
iii) It is particularly important to note that in view of the national transfer policy in respect of the High Court Judges, if any such Judge is compelled to deliver judgments in a language with which he is not well-versed, it might become extremely difficult for him to work judicially. On transfer from one part of the country to another, a High Court Judge is not expected to learn a new language at his age and to apply the same in delivering judgments.
iv) At any rate no language should be thrust upon the Judges of the higher judiciary and they should be left free to deliver their judgments in the language they prefer. It is important to remember that every citizen, every Court has the right to understand the law laid down finally by the Apex Court and at present one should appreciate that such a language is only English.
v) The use of English language also facilitates the movement of lawyers from High Courts to the Apex Court since they are not confronted with any linguistic problems and English remains the language at both the levels. Any survey of the society in general or its cross-sections will clearly substantiate the above proposition which does not admit of much debate, particularly in the present political, social and economic scenario.
vi) It may, however, be admitted that in so far as legislative drafting is concerned, every legislation although authoritatively enacted in English may have a Hindi authoritative translation along with the same at the central level. Same analogy may be applied even in respect of executive actions at the central level, but the higher judiciary should not be subjected to any kind of even persuasive change in the present societal context.
No comments:
Post a Comment