Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

25. Notwithstanding the above observations, it may not be difficult to explore some alternative mechanism at the institutional level administratively. The Hon'ble Chief Justice and all other Hon'ble Judges may be requested to address to the enormous difficulties that the litigants are likely to face before all the Benches of this Court in the State of Maharashtra and with the cherished goal of providing easy access to the justice delivery system at affordable costs, in mind. There have been number of instances where the litigants and even the advocates appearing for the parties are allowed to address in Marathi or the Marathi documents/orders impugned have been explained by one Judge to another while sharing the Bench. At times, we have noticed that the original Marathi copies of the impugned orders are more reliable than their English translated versions. It is ultimately the urge to do justice, that matters and not the semantic technicalities. We cannot, as the judges committed to our adjudicatory role, allow ourselves to be arrested in the cobweb of these technicalities. At the same time, the Bar and the Bench must join hands in exploring an alternative mechanism in place of Rule 2(i) in Chapter XVII of the Appellate Side Rules. Refusing to accept the petition for registration solely on the ground that the English translation of the impugned order in Marathi has not been annexed to the petition will be too harsh an action and resulting in denial of the very entry and access to seek justice. What would happen if the Governor of Maharashtra invokes his powers under Article 348(2), with the previous consent of the President of India, in the near future? All the Benches of this High Court, in the State of Maharashtra shall have to adopt the proceedings in Marathi in that eventuality. It is, therefore, for all of us to address to these serious and staring issues as early as possible, rather than merely asking the petitioners and litigants to approach the appellate forum. It cannot be said that the Full House does not have the necessary powers to find out an administrative mechanism, even in the absence of Rule 2(i) of the Appellate side Rules, so as to allow the registration of the Writ Petitions with the impugned order, GR or Rule copy being in Marathi language and to leave further choice to the Bench concerned to issue directions to file the english translation, before granting any relief to the petitioner.

"Rule 2 provides that any application made before the Court should be in English and any documents which are not in English, typed copies of such documents in English translation shall be filed before the Court. However, this rule has a proviso which provides that "provided that such translations would not be necessary if the documents are in Marathi and if the party or the Advocate undertakes that English translations would be supplied whenever an order in that respect is made by the Court in a particular proceeding." It appears that this proviso was not a part of the Rule but was added by a Notification in the year 1986. This proviso is the subject matter of controversy. A learned Division Bench of this Court held this proviso to be unconstitutional whereas another Learned Division Bench has not agreed with the views of the said bench. We have perused the orders of both the Learned Division Benches and we feel that since one Bench did not agree with the other Bench, a reference was made to Full Bench and as a result the matters have come before this bench.

The GR dated 29th July 2006 was the revised criteria for similar posts.

33] The Division Bench was of the opinion that considering Article 348 of the Constitution of India, English translation of this G.R.s were not available, although they are prima facie issued in exercise of subordinate legislation.

34] Firstly, referring to Article 348(1)(b) of the Constitution then to the Maharashtra Official Languages Act, 1964 and to the affidavit of the Government of Maharashtra, the Division Bench held that while exercising administrative powers under Article 154 of the Constitution of India, there is no requirement that English translation of G.Rs. Or administrative decisions must be made available.

Ultimately, the basic issue is of constitutional validity of a Rule made by the High Court in exercise of its constitutional and statutory power. Its competence to frame it is not disputed. The High Court defended the Rules and the proviso to Rule 2(i) by urging that it is a matter of procedure and there is nothing unconstitutional or illegal about it. The Rule together with the proviso is on the Rule book for more than a decade. No litigant has challenged it. There is a presumption about its validity and constitutionality and the burden is on those who question it. However, one Division Bench struck down only the proviso and not the Rule 2(i) in its entirety and another recorded its disapproval with such a conclusion by a reasoned order. Thus, an authoritative pronouncement was sought by the High Court as well. That apart, the litigants and advocates approaching the Court must know what is the final opinion of this Court on such a crucial issue. It concerns the right to seek a judicial review. They ought to know the procedural requirements before they approach us seeking Justice and whether their Writ Petition will be entertained, if the accompaniments in Marathi are tendered. In other words, whether a writ petition prepared in English but with Marathi Annexures will be accepted by the Registry, if the petitioner's/ party's Advocate gives an undertaking to produce an English Translation as and when required by the Court, or not, is something very vital for the public at large and must be decided once and for all. That there should not be any uncertainty on such a procedural aspect is a legitimate expectation of everybody. In my humble opinion, we are duty bound to answer the reference on merits in such a situation. More so, when the state and High Court Administration strongly supports the subject proviso. It is supported on various grounds including that presentation of appeals and applications including Public Interest Litigations by a party in person may be either in Marathi or Hindi or in English but English translation of memo of appeals, cross-objections, applications or petitions shall be required whenever a specific order in that respect is passed (Chapter IV, Rule 3 of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules). Further, Marathi is the official language of the State.