Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

14. Article 348 (2) of the Constitution of India states that notwithstanding anything in sub-clause (a) of clause (1), 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. This sub article does not leave any ambiguity and it opens with a non obstante clause. As per this article, though all the proceedings in the High Court of Bombay shall be in English, with the previous consent of the President, the Governor of Maharashtra may authorise the use of Marathi language which is used for any official purposes in the State of Maharashtra, in proceedings in this High Court. No doubt, under the Goa, Daman and Diu Reorganisation Act, 1987, the High Court of Bombay is a common High Court for the State of Maharashtra and Goa as well as the Union territories of Dadara and Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu. Section 20 of the said Act does not limit or in any way prejudice or control the powers of the Governor of Maharashtra under Article 348(2) of the Constitution to authorise the use of Marathi language in the proceedings in the High Court of Bombay, with the previous consent of the President of India and provided that despite such an order/authorisation by the Governor, the said order shall not apply to any judgment, decree or order passed or made by the High Court of Bombay.

At the same time, as the High Court of Bombay is a common High Court for the State of Maharashtra and Goa as well as the Union territories of Dadara and Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu, the powers so exercised by the Governor of Maharashtra in Article 348(2) shall apply only for the State of Maharashtra and such authorisation made by the Governor regarding Marathi language to be a language in the proceedings in the High Court of Bombay shall not, per se, be applicable for the State of Goa as well as the Union territories of Dadara and Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu. The words used in Article 348(2) "in proceedings in the High Court having its principal seat in that State" are very material and, therefore, Section 20 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Reorganisation Act, 1987 could not be an impediment in the exercise of powers under Article 348(2) of the Governor of Maharashtra to authorise the use of Marathi language in the proceedings in the High Court of Bombay for its three Benches (the Principal Bench and the Benches at Nagpur and Aurangabad), as the principal seat of the High Court of Bombay is in the State of Maharashtra (at Mumbai).

But, it has made a provision that the said document should be translated through the office and copies of the said document shall be made available to the other side. The machinery of the translator has been established on the Appellate Side and Original Side. Only for the purposes of translating the proceedings or the documents which are placed in languages, other than English, it appears that probably in 1986, it was considered that most of the Judges of the Bombay High Court knew Marathi language. If there was any Judge who did not know Marathi, he can make an order for translation of the documents and the translation could be made available to him. The purpose of allowing Marathi documents to be filed seems to minimise the costs of litigation to spare time to prepare the translations and to make the justice delivery system easily accessible to the litigants. Therefore, such a proviso must have been included. This is in consonance with Articles 350 and 39A of the Constitution. This aspect of the matter has not been considered by the Division Bench. The Division Bench only considered Article 348(2), but what we find is that the Division Bench has not, with respect, looked into Articles 350 and 39A of the Constitution of India while considering the vires of the said provision."

41] Subsequently, in para 17, the Division Bench in Vinayak Hari Kulkarni's case i.e., the latter Division Bench referred to section 20 of the Goa, Diu and Daman Re-organisation act and concluded that there is substance in the arguments canvassed on behalf of the petitioner in that case, viz., that, only because the regional language of Goa, Dadra Nagar-

Haveli, Daman and Diu is not reflected in the rules and that only Marathi language is covered thereby, it cannot be said that the rule is bad. Further, the Division Bench noted that what the petitioners are contending is that they may be allowed to file annexures in Marathi language, which is official language of the State of Maharashtra and the Rules permitting access to justice should be interpreted so as not to deny the right to seek justice from the court of law. The Division Bench held that while interpreting Article 348 of the Constitution of India, it would be necessary to keep in mind Article 39A and 350 thereof so also the scheme of early disposal of the matters, easy access to justice and cheaper judicial system.