Madras High Court Advocates Association challenges 1965 Union Cabinet decision to continue English as common language for Supreme Court and all High Courts

The central constitutional provision at play here is Article 348. Article 348(1) states that all proceedings in the Supreme Court and every High Court shall be in English until Parliament by law provides otherwise. However, Article 348(2) introduces a crucial caveat: it empowers the Governor of a State, with the previous consent of the President, to authorize the use of Hindi or any other official language of the State in the proceedings of the High Court having its principal seat in that State. The MHAA's petition challenges the 1965 Cabinet decision that essentially instituted a convention requiring the 'mandatory consent' of the Chief Justice of India before the President grants such authorization. This, the petitioners argue, is an unconstitutional executive dilution of Article 348(2), which does not prescribe consultation with the judiciary. This issue touches upon the delicate balance of power between the executive, the judiciary, and the constitutional text itself regarding language policy in higher courts.

From a governance perspective, the debate centers on the principle of Access to Justice. The petitioners contend that the mandatory use of English creates a barrier for common litigants, violating their fundamental rights under Article 14 (Equality before law), Article 19(1)(a) (Freedom of speech and expression), and Article 21 (Right to life and personal liberty, interpreted broadly to include fair trial). If litigants cannot understand the proceedings, their right to a fair hearing is compromised. Conversely, the 1965 MHA note highlights the administrative rationale for English: preserving a unified judicial system, facilitating the transfer of judges, ensuring consistency in legal precedents (stare decisis), and maintaining an all-India bar. The challenge for governance is to reconcile this need for systemic uniformity with the imperative of making the justice delivery system comprehensible and accessible to the diverse linguistic communities it serves.

The controversy is deeply rooted in India's complex linguistic history and the Official Language debate of the 1960s. The 1965 Cabinet decision was made during a period of intense anti-Hindi agitation, particularly in Tamil Nadu, resisting the imposition of Hindi as the sole official language of the Union. The Official Languages Act, 1963, specifically Section 7, was enacted to manage this transition, allowing optional use of Hindi or other state official languages in judgments of High Courts, provided there's an English translation. The petition highlights a historical disparity: while Hindi was authorized for High Courts in Rajasthan, UP, MP, and Bihar between 1950 and 1972 under Article 348(2), proposals for Tamil, Bengali, Gujarati, and Kannada in their respective High Courts have been consistently rejected. This perceived discriminatory application of language policy fuels ongoing demands for linguistic equity within the federal structure, making it a recurring issue in Center-State relations.