A Common Language for Justice

UPSC Syllabus: Gs Paper 2- Constitution of India

Introduction

The debate over Hindi as the Supreme Court’s official language raises questions about constitutional authority, judicial efficiency and access to justice. English remains prescribed for proceedings in the Supreme Court and High Courts, while citizens may face barriers when they cannot fully understand it. The central issue is how India can preserve consistency in judicial proceedings while making court processes and judgments accessible across its many languages.

Constitutional and Legal Framework Governing Judicial Language

1. Article 348(1)(a): English is the prescribed language for proceedings in the Supreme Court and High Courts until Parliament provides otherwise by law. Parliament has not enacted such a law to replace English.
2. Article 348(2): The Governor may authorise Hindi or another official language of the State for High Court proceedings, with the President’s prior consent. However, this provision does not itself authorise judgments, decrees or orders in that language.
3. Section 7 of the Official Languages Act, 1963: It allows the use of Hindi or a State’s official language for High Court judgments, decrees and orders, subject to the President’s prior consent and an authoritative English translation issued under the High Court’s authority.
4. Existing use of Hindi: Hindi was authorised in the Rajasthan High Court in 1950 and subsequently in Uttar Pradesh (1969), Madhya Pradesh (1971) and Bihar (1972), following consultation with the Chief Justice of India.
5. Role of the Chief Justice of India: A Cabinet Committee decision of 21 May 1965 stipulated that the Chief Justice of India’s consent should be obtained for proposals to introduce languages other than English in High Courts.
6. Rejection of other language proposals: In 2012, the Supreme Court’s Full Court rejected proposals to introduce Tamil, Gujarati, Hindi, Bengali and Kannada in five High Courts. In 2016, it reaffirmed its earlier position after Tamil Nadu sought reconsideration.

Why English Continues as the Common Language of Higher Judiciary

1. Constitutional continuity: English remains the prescribed language under Article 348, providing a common framework for proceedings across the Supreme Court and High Courts.
2. Judicial communication: In Madhu Limaye & Anr. v. Ved Murti & Ors. (1970), the Supreme Court held that an intervener insisting on arguing in Hindi could not participate because the Bench could not follow his arguments.
3. Consistency of legal precedents: Existing judgments and legal materials are largely available in English, making a sudden transition to another language difficult without reliable translations.
4. Administrative convenience: The Constituent Assembly debates reflected concerns that different languages could create difficulties in legislation, legal interpretation and communication between High Courts and the Supreme Court.
5. International legal engagement: The 216th Report of the Law Commission considered English’s global importance and the need for Indian judicial personnel to be proficient in the language.
6. Judicial familiarity: The Law Commission’s examination of compulsory Hindi noted that many judicial personnel were not sufficiently familiar with Hindi, making an immediate transition difficult.

Challenges of the Existing Language System

1. Barriers to public participation: Citizens and lawyers with limited English proficiency may struggle to present arguments or understand proceedings before higher courts, reducing their ability to participate effectively.
2. Limited understanding of judgments: Complex legal language and English-based judgments can make court decisions difficult for ordinary citizens to understand, creating distance between the judiciary and the public.
3. Colonial legacy: English gained prominence under British rule through colonial legal and administrative systems, including legislative codification associated with the Charter Act of 1833 and Macaulay’s role in legal drafting.
4. Gap between original intent and current practice: English was retained partly for administrative convenience, but its continued dominance raises questions about the persistence of an arrangement initially viewed as temporary.
5. Limits of a single-language replacement: Replacing English with Hindi alone would not address the needs of citizens speaking other Indian languages. Any reform must account for India’s linguistic diversity.

Initiatives Taken to Improve Access to Justice in Indian Languages

1. AI-assisted translation: SUVAS (Supreme Court Vidhik Anuvaad Software) supports the translation of Supreme Court judgments into 16 languages.
2. Translation of judgments: As of December 2, 2023, 31,184 Supreme Court judgments and 4,983 High Court judgments had been translated into regional languages.
3. Translation committees: The Supreme Court and High Courts have established committees to support AI-assisted legal translation.
4. Common legal vocabulary: The Bharatiya Bhasha Samiti is developing a common core vocabulary to facilitate the translation of legal material.
5. Regional-language accessibility: The Supreme Court has begun providing brief descriptions of its reports in Hindi, with plans to extend the initiative to other regional languages.

Way Forward

1. Gradual Legal Reforms: Parliament should consider changes to the existing language framework in consultation with State governments and the judiciary, while following constitutional procedures.
2. Technological Infrastructure: Courts should strengthen the infrastructure needed to translate judgments, legislation and court proceedings into Indian languages using AI-assisted tools.
3. Training and Capacity-Building: Judges, lawyers and court staff should receive appropriate training to manage multilingual proceedings and use translation technologies effectively.
4. Accuracy of Legal Translation: Translation systems should preserve the precise meaning of legal terms, judgments and precedents to avoid inconsistencies in legal interpretation.
5. Standardisation of Legal Terminology: Courts should adopt consistent legal terminology across Indian languages to improve the clarity and reliability of translated legal materials.
6. Linguistic Inclusiveness: Language reforms should recognise India’s linguistic diversity rather than replace English with Hindi alone, ensuring that speakers of different Indian languages can access justice.
7. Learning from Global Practices: India can study the use of national or official languages in the judicial systems of Rwanda, Tanzania, Egypt, France and Germany, while adapting relevant practices to its multilingual context.

Conclusion

India must balance judicial consistency with linguistic inclusion. English provides a common language for higher courts, but limited proficiency can restrict participation and understanding. Gradual reforms, accurate translations, trained personnel and shared legal terminology can improve access to justice. Any change must follow constitutional procedures and respect Parliament’s and the judiciary’s respective roles.

Question for practice:

Discuss the challenges associated with the use of English in the Indian judiciary and the measures needed to make justice more accessible in Indian languages.

Source: The Hindu; PIB