The Language of the Courts and of the Statute Book

What the Official Languages Act adds

Section 5. A Hindi translation of a Central Act or Ordinance, or of any order, rule, regulation or bye-law under the Constitution or a Central Act, published under the authority of the President in the Official Gazette, is deemed to be the authoritative text in Hindi. And from the appointed day the authoritative English text of every Bill and every amendment in either House of Parliament must be accompanied by an authorised Hindi translation.

So there are TWO authoritative texts of a Central Act. The English text under article 348(1)(b), and the Hindi text under section 5(1) where one has been published. That is a fact of Indian law students routinely do not know.

Section 6. Where a State legislature has prescribed a language other than Hindi for its Acts, a Hindi translation may be published under the Governor's authority in addition to the English translation required by article 348(3), and is then the authoritative text in Hindi.

Section 7. From the appointed day or any day thereafter, the Governor may, with the previous consent of the President, authorise the use of Hindi or the official language of the State, in addition to English, for the purposes of any JUDGMENT, decree or order passed or made by the High Court for that State; and where one is so passed or made in such a language, it must be accompanied by a translation in English issued under the authority of the High Court.

Section 7 supplies exactly what article 348(2) withholds, and the relation between the two provisions is the sharpest illustration in this paper of a statute completing a constitutional scheme.

Subordinate courts, which article 348 does not reach

Article 348 governs the Supreme Court and the High Courts. The language of a District Court, a Magistrate's court or a tribunal is not fixed by it.

It is fixed by State law. Section 272 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, now the corresponding provision of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, empowers the State Government to determine the language of each court within the State other than the High Court; and section 137 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that the language of the subordinate courts shall continue as at present until the State Government otherwise directs.

So the practical position is a two-tier one. The trial is generally in the State's language and the appeal is in English, and the record has to be translated at the point where the two meet.

Article 349

The text. During the period of fifteen years from the commencement of the Constitution, no Bill or amendment making provision for the language to be used for any of the purposes mentioned in article 348(1) shall be introduced or moved in either House of Parliament without the previous sanction of the President, and the President shall not give his sanction unless he has taken into consideration the recommendations of the Commission constituted under article 344(1) and the report of the Committee constituted under article 344(4).

Its significance now. It is spent, the fifteen years having expired in 1965. It is included here because MU asks for "the provisions" and because it shows how carefully the framers fenced the language question about.

The argument about the language of the courts

For English. It is the language in which the whole body of Indian precedent exists; a single language for the higher judiciary keeps the law uniform across twenty-eight States; a lawyer can appear anywhere; and the Supreme Court's judgments are usable in every High Court.

Against English. A litigant cannot read the judgment in their own case; the profession is closed to those who did not learn English at school; and a law whose authoritative text is in a language almost nobody speaks is not accessible to those it binds.

Where the compromise has settled. Article 348(2) and section 7 permit a State language in proceedings and, with the President's consent, in judgments, always with an English translation. The Law Commission has considered the question more than once and has not recommended abandoning English for the higher courts.

And what has actually changed. Not the rule but the technology: authoritative and machine translations of judgments into Indian languages are now published by the Supreme Court itself, which addresses the access objection without altering article 348.

A worked example

A State legislature enacts a statute in its own language; a case under it is tried in a District Court and appealed to the High Court.

The authoritative text of the statute. Under article 348(3), the English translation published under the Governor's authority in the Official Gazette. If a Hindi translation is also published under section 6 of the Act, that is authoritative in Hindi.

The trial. In the language determined by the State Government under the Code, generally the State's language.

The appeal. Article 348(1)(a): proceedings in the High Court in English, unless the Governor has obtained the President's consent under article 348(2), in which case the State language may be used in proceedings.

The judgment. English, unless section 7 authorisation exists, in which case the State language with an English translation issued under the High Court's authority.

And an appeal to the Supreme Court. English, article 348(1)(a), with no exception at all.

What this does NOT mean

It does not mean a litigant may not be heard in their own language. They may in the subordinate courts, and in four High Courts in Hindi; and everywhere they may address a government in their own language under article 350.

It does not mean the English text is the only text. Section 5 of the Act makes a published Hindi translation of a Central Act authoritative in Hindi.

And it does not mean the position is permanent. Article 348(1) opens with the words "until Parliament by law otherwise provides".

Quick revision

Article 348(1)(a): proceedings in the Supreme Court and every High Court in English. 348(1)(b): the authoritative texts of Bills, Acts, Ordinances, orders, rules, regulations and bye-laws in English. 348(2): the Governor with the President's previous consent may authorise Hindi or a State language in High Court PROCEEDINGS, but NOT in a judgment, decree or order; used by Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan. 348(3): where a State prescribes another language, the Governor's published English translation is the authoritative text. Article 349: spent, a fifteen-year fence requiring the President's sanction and consideration of the article 344 Commission and Committee. Official Languages Act section 5, an authoritative Hindi text of Central Acts; section 6, of State Acts; section 7, Hindi or the State language in a High Court JUDGMENT with the President's consent and an English translation. Subordinate courts: State Government under the Codes, not article 348.

Test yourself

1. What does article 348(1) require? That until Parliament otherwise provides, all proceedings in the Supreme Court and in every High Court, and the authoritative texts of all Bills, Acts, Ordinances, orders, rules, regulations and bye-laws of the Union and of the States, shall be in the English language.

2. What may a Governor authorise under article 348(2), and what may he not? With the previous consent of the President, the use of Hindi or of another language used for the official purposes of the State in proceedings in the High Court for that State. He may not authorise it for any judgment, decree or order, which the proviso expressly excludes.

3. How can a High Court nevertheless deliver a judgment in Hindi? Under section 7 of the Official Languages Act 1963, by which the Governor with the President's previous consent may authorise Hindi or the State's official language in addition to English for a judgment, decree or order, an English translation issued under the High Court's authority being required.

4. How many authoritative texts can a Central Act have? Two. The English text under article 348(1)(b), and a Hindi text where a translation has been published under the authority of the President in the Official Gazette under section 5(1) of the Official Languages Act 1963.

5. What fixes the language of a District Court? Not article 348, which reaches only the Supreme Court and the High Courts, but State law: the State Government determines the language of the courts within the State other than the High Court under the criminal procedure legislation, and the language of the civil courts continues as at present until the State Government otherwise directs.