AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B. Subhashan Reddy, C.J.—This Writ Petition is filed seeking for a writ of mandamus to the Governor to issue notification under Article
348(2) of the Constitution of India for the use of Tamil language in the High Court of Madras.
Mr.S. Ayyadurai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in this public interest litigation, takes us to Article 348 of the Constitution of India
relating to the language in the Supreme Court and the High Court etc. What the learned counsel submits is that Tamil Language should be
permitted to be used, right from filing of petitions till the disposal of cases, in addition to English language, Article 348(1) of the Constitution of
India provides (a) all proceedings in the Supreme court and in every High Court shall be in English language. Article 348(2) of Constitution of India
reads as follows:
(2) Notwithstanding anything in sub clause (a) of Clause (i) 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.
Provided that nothing in this clause shall apply to any judgment, decree or order passed or made by such High Court
Admittedly there is no such power exercised by Governor under Article 348(2) of the Constitution of India, and by this Writ Petition a direction
is sought to be issued to the Governor and the council of Ministers to exercise such power, and issue notification authorising the usage of Tamil
language in the High Court also. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgments of Allahabad High Court reported in Prabhandhak
Samiti and Another Vs. Zila Vidyalaya Nirikshak, Allahabad and Others, and Rajasthan High Court reported in Narendra Kumar Vs. Rajasthan
High Court and Others, .
In Prabhandhak Samiti and Another Vs. Zila Vidyalaya Nirikshak, Allahabad and Others, notification was already issued by the Governor
exercising the power under Article. 348(2) of the Constitution of India authorising the usage of Hindi in Devnagri script in the High Court of
Allahabad. In Narendrakumar vs. Rajasthan High Court, Narendra Kumar Vs. Rajasthan High Court and Others, a distinction was drawn
between Article 344 and 348 of Constitution of India. We are not facing such a situation as arisen either in the case cite first supra or second
supra. As already stated above, Article 348(2) of the Constitution of India enables the Governor of a State, to authorise the use of the Hindi
language or any other language in addition to English even in the High Court, and if such enabling provision is exercised, it may be that the language
other than English can be put to use. But in the absence of any such notification, nobody can demand to exercise such power to issue such
notification. It is for the authorities empowered under Article 348(2) of the Constitution of India to exercise such power and it is well settled law
that the High Court will not legislate the matter and issue such a direction as sought for in this writ petition, for exercise of such power, which is
legislative in nature. We therefore dismiss the writ petition.