Which Language Is Used in High Court

He praised the Chief Justice and said that people liked him very much. India`s Chief Justice (ICJ) N.V. Ramana said on Saturday that there are «some obstacles» regarding the introduction of local languages into the country`s respective supreme courts, but expressed confidence that the problem can be solved «in the near future» with the help of scientific innovations, including artificial intelligence (AI). Justice (judicial system) / Language / Tamil Nadu / Chennai The use of Hindi has long been approved in proceedings as well as in judgments, decrees or orders of the supreme courts of the states of Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh and Bihar. The Government of India had received proposals from the Governments of Tamil Nadu, Gujarat, Chhattisgarh, West Bengal and Karnataka to allow the use of Tamil, Gujarati, Hindi, Bengali and Kannada in proceedings of the Madras High Court, the Gujarat High Court, the Chhattisgarh High Court, of the Calcutta High Court and the Karnataka High Court. The opinion of the Chief Justice of India was sought on these proposals in accordance with a 1965 decision of the Cabinet Committee which states that the observations of the Chief Justice of India are required before considering a proposal for the use of Hindi or a regional language in Supreme Court proceedings. The Chief Justice of India stated in his D.O. of 16.10.2012 that the plenum had decided, after careful consideration, not to accept the proposals. The government complied with the Supreme Court decision. Interestingly, bills have also been introduced in Parliament – the High Courts (Use of Official Languages) Bill, 2016 and the Supreme Court, High Courts and District Courts (Use of Official Languages) Bill, 2018 – to make the use of regional languages mandatory in courts, including the Supreme Court, but so far nothing has come of it.

Finally, while the use of local languages in district courts is important, the use of English should not be completely excluded and efforts should be made to improve the conduct of proceedings in English over time in order to standardize the judicial system. In 1963, Parliament passed the Official Languages Act. Section 7 authorizes the governor of a state, with the prior consent of the president, to authorize the use of Hindi/the official language of the state in addition to English for the purposes of any judgment, decree or order of the Supreme Court of that state. It also provides that if a judgment/decree/order is rendered in such a language, it must be accompanied by a translation of the judgment into English. The exclusion of English from district courts has other consequences. Many young lawyers who wish to sit for judicial examinations would be at a disadvantage if they sat for examinations outside their home country. They may pass another state`s exam, but even if they are appointed, they will not be able to fulfill their duty if they do not speak the national language of that particular state. This will discourage many people from applying for judicial service jobs outside their own state, depriving the other state of the best possible talent.

Nevertheless, the court accepted that, although the statements were «excessively lawful» to some extent, there had been «no serious breach» of the relevant Practice Directions. In addition, the court noted that «Mr. Bahia`s lawyers had to make a difficult decision as to the language to be used to prepare his statements and, overall, their decision to prepare them in English was not objectionable.» «From time to time, various regions have requested the use of the national language in proceedings before the Supreme Courts under Article 348 of the Constitution. There has been a lot of discussion about this. Certain obstacles have prevented the use of the national language in proceedings before the supreme courts. I am sure that with innovation in science and technology, advances such as artificial intelligence, some of the problems associated with introducing languages in supreme courts can be solved in the near future,» he told CJI. India is a country with great linguistic diversity. The Eighth Schedule to the Constitution recognizes 22 different languages. Like it or not, English is the lingua franca that bridges the linguistic gap between different states. The judicial system is no exception.

The Constitution also recognizes the importance of the use of English in high justice. The Official Languages Act does not mention the Supreme Court, where English is the only language in which proceedings are conducted. All pleadings and arguments presented to the Supreme Court are in English. All documents attached to the letter must be in English or in English translation only. «Tamils are very proud of their identity, language, food and culture. They are at the forefront of protecting cultural and language rights in the country. Even today, when we humans think of India`s linguistic diversity, the struggle of the Tamils comes to mind. When I visited my parents in the city when I was a child, I remember witnessing massive protests over the language issue, even though I was too young to understand the problem,» he said, in an apparent reference to the anti-Hindi agitation orchestrated by the DMK in the 1960s. Mr.

Temmink also referred to Article 18.1 of paragraph 18.1 of PD32, which states that «testimony, if possible, shall be written in the own words of the witness concerned. (emphasis added). Mr. Temmink argued that when Mr. Bahia was to speak a mixture of Punjabi and English, and when the meaning of certain English words had to be explained to him, it was not practical to do anything other than prepare his statements in English, in words that were not necessarily his own. The Supreme Court opened contempt proceedings against Suo Motu and Mr Vyas in 2014 after the publication was written against a court order issued by a court in Gandhinagar. Essentially: language in the courts and its meaning, analysis of the use of regional languages in high justice. Mr. Bahia`s defence lawyer, Mr. Temmink, argued that the recent proliferation of rules and guidelines for witness testimony had become a «legal minefield» and a particularly dangerous minefield in which a witness spoke in a mixture of two languages. Section 348 (1) of the Constitution of India provides that all proceedings before the Supreme Court and each Supreme Court shall be conducted in English until otherwise provided by law by Parliament.

Recently, the Supreme Court of Gujarat asked a journalist accused of contempt of court to speak only in English, as it was the language of the high judiciary. The petition alleges that the Haryana State Language (Amendment) Act 2020 unconstitutionally and arbitrarily introduced Hindi as the only official language used in the state`s lower courts. In cases where a witness speaks a mixture of English and another language, the decision to write his or her testimony in English may be justified. Although the Court launched an initiative in 2019 to translate its judgments into regional languages, this is a considerable task given the considerable volume of judgments delivered by the Court. Another important aspect is related to this. Most of the basic legal framework in India focuses on the constitution and parliamentary legislation. In the meantime, the Supreme Court has ruled on almost all of these laws. In fact, many important state laws have also been reviewed by the Supreme Court. Article 141 states that the law declared by the Supreme Court is binding on all courts in the Indian Territory. Background: Lawyers have challenged in the Supreme Court a law that makes Hindi the official language in Haryana`s courts. The Chamber is composed of Chief Justice Aravind Kumar and A.J. Shastri issued the directive to Vishal Vyas, a local journalist who runs Samna Bharstachar Ka, who was prosecuted in 2014 for contempt of court.

Thus, Mr. Clarke suggested that the court treat Mr. Bahia`s statements with a «considerable degree of caution» and attach no weight to his statements, as the violations «affect the weight that the court should give to this evidence, as they relate to the extent to which the court can be sure that the content of the testimony accurately reflects the testimony of non-English-speaking witnesses.» .