VIRENDRA SHAH SODH Vs. P A

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition was drafted in Sanskrit language and has been filed 24 years ago for adjudication before this Court alongwith a copy of writ petition in Hindi Deo Nagri script. On 2.7.1986 this Court has admitted the aforesaid writ petition and issued notices to the opposite parties. The order admitting the writ petition was passed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.L. Yadav (as he then was) in three languages i.e. in Sanskrit language, in Hindi Deo Nagri script and in English language.

(2.) Today the case has been taken up for hearing. Learned counsel for the petitioner has been asked to inform the Court as to whether a writ petition drafted in Sanskrit language can be presented for adjudication before this Court or such writ petition can be entertained and adjudicated by this Court or not? In reply thereto learned Counsel for the petitioner has pointed out only this much that about 24-25 years ago a decision was rendered by Hon'ble Justice Late B.L. Yadav in Sanskrit language therefore he has submitted to decide instant writ petition on merit, which has been drafted and presented in Sanskrit language. In support of his aforesaid submission he has neither cited the aforesaid decision rendered by this Court in Sanskrit language nor can point out any provision of law under which such petition can be presented for adjudication in Sanskrit language before the High Court. Contrary to it a preliminary objection has been raised by learned Standing counsel about the maintainability of the instant writ petition presented before this Court in Sanskrit language. Thus in given facts and circumstances of the case, now question arises for consideration is that as to whether a writ petition presented in the Sanskrit language can be adjudicated or this Court can refuse to entertain and adjudicate such writ petition?

(3.) From a plain reading of Article 348 (1) (a) of the Constitution of India it is clear that the provisions of said Article open with non-abstante clause to the effect that notwithstanding anything in the foregoing provisions of this Part, until Parliament by law otherwise provides all proceedings in the Supreme Court and in every High Court, shall be in the English language. It means that despite anything contained in the foregoing provisions of Part XVII of the Constitution until Parliament by making/enacting a law otherwise provides, all proceedings in the Supreme Court and in every High Court, shall be in English language. Clause (2) of Article 348 of the Constitution again opens with similar non-abstante clause to the effect that notwithstanding anything in sub-clause (a) of clause (1), the Governor of a State may, with the previous consent of the President, authorise the use of the Hindi language, or any other language used for any official purposes of the State, in proceedings in the High Court having its principal seat in that State. It means that the Governor of a State with the previous consent of the President, can authorise the use of Hindi language or any other language used for any official purposes in that State, in the proceedings in the High Court of that State.