Supreme Court dismisses petition against its exclusive use of English

The Supreme Court on Monday, 4 November, refused to entertain a public interest litigation (PIL) challenging Article 348(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution, which mandates the exclusive use of English in proceedings before the apex court.

“How could you challenge the constitutional validity of Article 348? It is a part of the original Constitution,” a bench headed by Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud asked the petitioner.

Dismissing the petition, the bench, also comprising justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, said that the PIL was “wholly lacking in substance” and “merit”.

Further, the apex court questioned whether parties should be heard in every language recognised in the Constitution. It said, “We have appeals and SLPs (special leave petitions) which come to this court from diverse states. Should we now be hearing parties in every language recognised by the Constitution?”

The PIL said that the imposition of English as the sole language in judicial proceedings disproportionately affects the petitioners who are unable to file their petitions in English due to their lack of proficiency in the language.

“These provisions (Article 348(1)(a) of the Constitution of India and Rule 2 of Order VIII of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013) create significant barriers for the petitioners who lack proficiency in English and want to have access to justice by filing petitions in person in the Hindi language. Qua such persons, such provisions infringe their fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19, 21 and 32 of the Constitution,” said the plea filed by advocate K.C. Jain.

Further, it said that filing petitions in Hindi in the Supreme Court would lead to greater linguistic inclusivity to ensure access to justice for non-English speakers. The petitioner prayed that available translation technologies, such as AI-assisted tools, be utilised to translate petitions filed in Hindi into English for the convenience and understanding of the judges.