216Th Report on Non-Feasibility Of
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA LAW COMMISSION OF INDIA NON-FEASIBILITY OF INTRODUCTION OF HINDI AS COMPULSORY LANGUAGE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Report No. 216 December 2008 1 LAW COMMISSION OF INDIA (REPORT NO. 216) NON-FEASIBILITY OF INTRODUCTION OF HINDI AS COMPULSORY LANGUAGE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Presented to Dr. H.R.Bhardwaj, Union Minister for Law & Justice, Ministry of Law & Justice, Government of India, by Dr. Justice AR. Lakshmanan, Chairman, Law Commission of India, on the 17th day of December, 2008. The 18th Law Commission was constituted for a period of three years from 1st September, 2006 by Order No. A.45012/1/2006-Admn.III (LA) dated the 16th October, 2006, 2 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Law and Justice, Department of Legal Affairs, New Delhi. The Law Commission consists of the Chairman, the Member-Secretary, one full-time Member and seven part- time Members. Chairman Hon’ble Dr Justice AR. Lakshmanan Member-Secretary Dr Brahm A. Agrawal Full-time Member Prof. Dr Tahir Mahmood Part-time Members Dr (Mrs) Devinder Kumari Raheja Dr K. N. Chandrasekharan Pillai Prof. (Mrs) Lakshmi Jambholkar Smt. Kirti Singh Shri Justice I. Venkatanarayana Shri O.P. Sharma Dr (Mrs) Shyamlha Pappu The Law Commission is located in ILI Building, 2nd Floor, Bhagwan Das Road, 3 New Delhi-110 001 Law Commission Staff Member-Secretary Dr Brahm A. Agrawal Research Staff Shri Sushil Kumar : Joint Secretary & Law Officer Ms. Pawan Sharma : Additional Law Officer Shri J. T. Sulaxan Rao : Additional Law Officer Shri A. K. Upadhyay : Deputy Law Officer Dr V. K. Singh : Assistant Legal Adviser Administrative Staff Shri Sushil Kumar : Joint Secretary & Law Officer Shri D. Choudhury : Under Secretary Shri S. K. Basu : Section Officer Smt. Rajni Sharma : Assistant Library & Information Officer 4 The text of this Report is available on the Internet at http://www.lawcommissionofindia.nic.in © Government of India Law Commission of India The text in this document (excluding the Government Logo) may be reproduced free of charge in any format or medium provided that it is reproduced accurately and not used in a misleading context. The material must be acknowledged as the Government of India copyright and the title of the document specified. Any enquiries relating to this Report should be addressed to the Member-Secretary and sent either by post to the Law Commission of India, 2nd Floor, ILI Building, Bhagwan Das Road, New Delhi-110001, India or by email to lci- [email protected] 5 Dr. Justice AR. Lakshmanan ILI Building (IInd Floor), (Former Judge, Supreme Court of India) Bhagwandas Road, Chairman, Law Commission of India New Delhi-110 001 Tel.: 91-11-23384475 Fax: 91-11-23383564 D.O.No. 6(3)127/2006-LC(LS) December 17, 2008 Dear Dr Bhardwaj ji, I have great pleasure in presenting the 216th Report of the Law Commission of India on “NON-FEASIBILITY OF INTRODUCTION OF HINDI AS COMPULSORY LANGUAGE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA”. The Law Commission received a reference from the Department of Legal Affairs, Ministry of Law & Justice which has 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. 6 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. These are extracted extensively under Chapter III of the report. 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. 7 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. Yours sincerely, (Dr. Justice AR. Lakshmanan) Dr. H.R.Bhardwaj, Hon’ble Minister for Law & Justice, Government of India, Ministry of Law& justice, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi-110001. 8 CONTENTS Chapter Page No. Chapter I: Introduction 10 Chapter II: Relevant provisions of the Constitution of India 12-13 Chapter III: Views of Judges, Senior Advocates, High Court Advocates’ Associations on the proposal to amend article 348 of the Constitution of India 14-71 Chapter IV: Conclusion and Recommendations 71-76 9 REPORT ON “NON-FEASIBILITY OF INTRODUCTION OF HINDI AS COMPULSORY LANGUAGE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA”. CHAPTER I Introduction This Report deals with the recommendations of the Committee of Parliament on Official Language 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. It is expedient to state briefly the genesis of this Report. The Law Commission received a reference from the Department of Legal Affairs, Ministry of Law & Justice which has 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. The Committee of Parliament on Official Language was constituted in 1976 under section 4(1) of the Official Languages Act, 1963. The said Committee submitted seventh part of its Report, inter alia, relating to 10 propagation of Hindi for official purposes, the position of Hindi in the field of Law, original use of Hindi in Government work, to the President. After considering the views of expressed by various Union Ministries/ Departments and the States/Union Territories Governments, the Ministry of Home Affairs, Department of Official Language conveyed under the said Resolution dated 13.7.2005, the Orders of the President made under section 4(4) of the Official Languages Act, 1963 on the recommendations made in the Report of the said Committee at S.No.16.8(d) and 16.8(e) as under:- “16.8(d) Article 348 of the Constitution may be amended to enable the Legislative Department to undertake original drafting in Hindi.