AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R. Subbiah, J.—This writ petition is filed by way of public interest by Madras Bar Association, represented by its Secretary, for issuance of
a Writ of Mandamus, directing respondents 1 and 2 to provide necessary funds and infrastructure for appointment of 300 Translators (Tamil to
English) in the Madras High Court.
The facts, which are necessary to make such a prayer, as culled out from the affidavit filed in support of the petition and counter filed by the
respondents, are as follows:
In the year 1956, the State of Tamil Nadu, passed the Madras Official Language Act, 1956 (Act No. 39/56), which provides for the adoption of
Tamil as the language to be used for the official purposes of the State of Madras. Section 2 of the said Act provides that the official language of the
State of Madras shall be Tamil. Section 3 provides that English language shall continue to be used for all the official purposes of the State until the
State Government issued necessary Notification u/s 4 of the Act. The State Government, in exercise of the powers conferred u/s 4 of the said Act,
issued a Notification in G.O.Ms. No. 563 of 1969, Public (Tamil Development-I) dated 13.11.1969 officially for adopting Tamil language as the
Court language in the Subordinate Courts with effect from 14.01.1970 and under the express terms of Notification, Tamil alone to be the language
of the Subordinate Courts for recording evidence. As per Section 4-B(1) of the Tamil Nadu Official Language Act, Tamil shall be the language of
all the Civil Courts, Criminal Courts, subordinate to the High Court, Tribunals and Rent Control Courts for writing judgments, decrees and orders.
u/s 4-B(2) of the said Act, the State Government is empowered to notify the date or dates from which the provisions of Sub-section (1) of that
Section shall come into force. In exercise of the said powers, the State Government issued necessary Notification in G.O.Ms. No. 191, Law dated
13.11.1976 making Tamil as the language to all Criminal courts, subordinate to the High Court, for writing judgments and orders. Thereafter, the
Government had issued a G.O.Ms. No. 9, Law dated 18.01.1982 fixing the 1st day of February, 1982, as the date on which the provision of
Sub-section (1) of Section 4-B of the Tamil Nadu Official Language Act shall come into force in respect of all the Civil Courts, Tribunals and Rent
Control Courts, subordinate to the High Court.
The constitutional validity of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Official Language Act, 1956, has been upheld by a Full Bench of this Court on
21.04.1994 in W.P. Nos. 1059, 1148, 1294 of 1982 and 4287 of 1984 and further the Full Bench upheld the introduction of Tamil as official
language up to District level in the Subordinate judiciary, Tribunals and other Statutory authorities.
So far as the High Court is concerned, as per Article 348(1)(a) of the Constitution of India, all the proceedings in the High Court are in English
language. Moreover, in appeals, viz., documents/judgments received from the Subordinate Courts are in Tamil, then the same shall be translated
into English by the translation department of this Court and the papers placed before the Hon''ble Judges, whether the Hon''ble Judges are familiar
with Tamil or not. Tamil is not at all used as the language of the High Court.
Since the language of the subordinate courts, Tribunals and other authorities functioning under various statutes is Tamil, all orders, evidence and
documentary in oral are invariably in Tamil. Orders VIII and IX of the Rules of the High Court Madras Appellate Side, 1965, enumerate the
procedure that may be adopted in respect of the preparation of the records, (i) in appeals against original decrees of subordinate courts, and (ii) in
proceedings (other than Original side Appeals and Appeals against original decrees of subordinate courts in suits) including references. As per
Sub-rule 3(iv) of the said Rules, the charges for the preparation of the records pointed out by the parties including the charges for translation if any,
shall be paid by the parties within 25 days from the date of the receipt of the bill from the Registrar. Rule 5 of the said Rules prescribes that except
as provided in Rule 35, it shall not be necessary to translate into English any papers in Tamil language. Papers in languages other than Tamil shall
be translated into English. Where it is necessary to translate any paper into English, it shall be done through Court. Further, as per Rule 14 of the
same Order, Practitioners shall be responsible for all the translation and other charges for the preparation of the record incurred on their behalf
under these Rules. As per Rule 22 of the said Order, on the application of the appellant, the Registrar may grant permission to prepare the record
privately subject to payment of comparison charges as prescribed. Similarly, as per Order IX Rule 6(ii) of the said Rules, 1965, if the records
required by the party are in a language other than Tamil or English, it shall be translated into English through the Court and for that, the parties have
to pay the charges prescribed by the Registry.
All the records received from the lower courts in appeal or revision, as the case may be, are translated into English by this Registry. But, due to
the limited staff, the system of translation by the Registry has not become possible. Since there are not sufficient translators, the members of the Bar
themselves have spent their time in translating papers. Though a translating document or even the oral evidence of a witness is the job of a specialist
one, who has trained himself in that field, the result may be that the translation may not be accurate if made by a busy practitioner. Under such
circumstances, the writ petition is filed for the relief sought for as stated supra.
The counter filed by the 3rd respondent, Registrar (General) on 07.08.2001 reveals that prior to 01.10.1984, the translators in the High Court
Establishment came under the category ''Special Assistants'' in the High Court Service. Pursuant to the recommendation of the Pay Commission,
the posts were merged with the post of Assistant Section Officers. At present, the Assistant Section Officers are doing the work of Translators.
They are attending to the work of translation relating to the cases both Civil and Criminal, filed before the Supreme Court of India. In the year
1994, a letter was addressed to the Government by this Court for sanction of 80 Assistant Section Officers (among other posts) for translation
wing of this Court. But, the Government of Tamil Nadu sanctioned merely 6 posts of Assistant Section Officers for the translation work in this
Court vide G.O.Ms. No. 900/Home/Cts.II Department, dated 26.06.1995. Thereafter, this Court, once again addressed the Government vide
R.O.C. No. 1333-A/94/G2 dated 08.05.1997 dated 22.01.1999 and 29.01.1999 for sanction of additional posts and the Government in
G.O.Ms. No. 526 Home (Cts.II) Department have issued orders sanctioning certain additional posts to this Court.
Mr. N.R. Chandran, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, by placing reliance on various judgments of this Court reported in
P. Perumal and Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu, etc., and Ors. 1994 W L.R. 24;
M.S. Saraswathi and Ors. v. The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by The Secretary, Home (Courts V Department, and The Registrar, High Court,
Madras 1996 W L.R. 267,
R. Kumar and Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary, Home Department and the Registrar, High Court, Madras and The Official
Assignee, High Court, Madras 1996 W L.R. 230 and
T.N. Civil Courts Senior Bailiffs Assn. v. The Secretary to Govt., Finance Dept. and The Registrar, High Court, Madras 1995 W L.R. 845,
elaborately made his submission with regard to the plight of the litigants and hardship undergoing by the advocates in translating the records,
judgments, evidence of the subordinate courts and insisted for the immediate appointment of Translators. Further, the learned Senior counsel made
his submission on the lines with regard to the recommendation made by the High Court for appointment of Translators that it is not permissible to
disregard the recommendation of the Chief Justice of the High Court. Such an attitude of the Government is wholly impermissible with regard to the
object of Article 229. Further, he submitted that the delay in appointing Translators is also one of the reasons for pendency of cases in the High
Court. Thus, he prayed for immediate appointment of Translators.
Heard the learned Counsel for both sides.
This writ petition is of the year 1998. By taking into account the plight of the litigants and the sufferings of the advocates in translating the
judgments and evidence of the subordinate courts and the counter filed by the 3rd respondent, which reveals that this Court has addressed several
letters to the Government for appointment of Translators, we are of the view that the Government should have taken action in appointing
Translators in the High Court. Due to the introduction of Tamil as language in the subordinate courts, majority of the judgments are being written in
Tamil by the subordinate courts and the evidence is also being recorded in Tamil. Article 348(1)(a) of the Constitution of India specifically
provides that the language of High Court shall be in English.
So far, the language of the High Court is in English and Tamil is not used as a language of the High Court. Therefore, the Registry is required to
translate the records in English by the Translation Department of this Court and the papers are placed before the Hon''ble Judges irrespective of
the fact as to whether the Judges are familiar with the language of Tamil or not. If translation has not been done, it will be very difficult to place the
matters before the Hon''ble Judges, who are from outside States and who are not conversant with the Tamil language. The poor litigants should not
be put to suffer by taking the task of translating the judgments, evidence, etc., on their own, which would incur huge expenses, besides consuming
excessive time. Moreover, it is appalling, due to the inadequate staff, the translation in most of the matters got delayed which consequently has
delayed the hearing of the cases by the Court. To illustrate, recently due to want of translation, the hearing of a criminal case, known as ''Saravana
Bhavan Hotel case'' got delayed for a considerable length of time and another criminal case, namely ''Coimbatore bomb blast case'' would not be
heard by a Division Bench for want of translation. For example, in Rajiv Gandhi case, the Government in G.O.Ms. No. 411, Home dated
03.04.1998, sanctioned 100 posts of Assistant Section Officers temporarily for a period of three months for the specific purpose of translating the
judgment and other connected documents. These incidents would speak voluminous for the emergent need of appointment of Translators for quick
and effective administration of justice.
In fact, the counter filed by the 3rd respondent would show that this Court addressed a letter as early as in the year 1994 for appointment of
Assistant Section Officers for translation. But the Government has sanctioned six posts only. Though presently only few Judges are from outside
States, till the situation for appointing the Translators is in existence.
In this regard, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has placed catena of decisions and submitted that when a recommendation is made by
the Chief Justice, it is not permissible for the Government to disregard the recommendations and to persist in holding a contrary view and the
recommendations of the High Court cannot be ignored for flimsy reasons. The counter filed by the 3rd respondent would show that the Registry is
not in a position to translate the documents in a full-fledged manner due to want of staff. The statistics particulars would show that nowadays filing
of appeals against the judgments of the civil and criminal subordinate courts are increasing year after year. Under such circumstances, the poor
litigants should not be made to suffer, merely for the purpose of translation on the ground of inadequate strength. This Court, on several occasions,
had sent letters to the Government to consider the matter in the hope that the Government after such consideration, would recognise the just claim
of the petitioner and act in accordance with the recommendations that had been made by the Hon''ble the Chief Justice of this Court. In the light of
the above situation, we are of the considered view that it is necessary to issue a mandamus to the Government to increase the strength of the
Translators in the High Court after having consultation with the High Court by taking into consideration the present scenario.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the 1st respondent is hereby directed to provide necessary funds and infrastructure for appointment of
sufficient number of Translators by taking the present scenario into consideration and having consultation with the High Court, within a period of six
months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. No costs.