Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5. Chapter I of Part XVII of the Constitution relates to language of the Union (Articles 343 and 344), while Chapter II deals with Regional Languages (Articles 345 to 347). Chapter III deals with the language of the Supreme Court and the High Courts (Articles 348 and 349). Chapter IV provides certain special directives (Articles 350,350-A, 350-B and 351). Under Article 343, a period of fifteen years from the commencement of the Constitution is fixed for continuation of English language for all official purposes of the Union for which it was being used immediately before such commencement. Clause (3) of the Article enables the Parliament to make a law providing for the use of English Language even after the said period of fifteen years for such purposes as may be specified in the law. In pursuance of the said provision, the Parliament passed the Official Language Act, 1963 (Act 19 of 1963), by which the continuance of English language for official purposes of the Union and for use in Parliament beyond the period of fifteen years from the commencement of the Constitution was authorised. We are not, in these cases, concerned with the provisions in the said Act.

13. III. Contentions : The petitioner in W.P. No. 1059 of 1982 has raised the following contentions:

1. The President was not competent to enact the amendment Act of 1976, as he had not consulted a Committee as provided in the proviso to Section 3(2) of the Central Act 41 of 1976.
2. The provisions in Articles 345 to 347 of the Constitution do not permit the use of any regional language in courts. The expression "official purpose of the State" found in the Article would not include judicial proceedings or purpose of courts.

20. We do not find any substance in any of the above contentions. The expression used in Article 345 is "official purposes of the State". It is elementary that the State comprises of three organs, the executive, the Legislature and the judiciary. Unless the context otherwise indicates, "official purposes of all the three organs of the State. The courts and judicial proceedings cannot be excluded there from. It is only because of that, the Constitution took care to expressly exclude the Supreme Court and the High Courts from the ambit of Articles 343 to 347. There is no merit in saying that the language of the High Court shall be the language of the subordinate courts as they are under the control of the High Court. Article 235 enumerates the matters with respect to which the High Court has control over the courts subordinate to it. That provision does not override the provisions of Article 345. A perusal of Article 235 shows that it pertains, to the administrative control of the subordinate courts. If the said article is construed in the manner in which the petitioners wanted it to be construed, it would run counter to the provisions of Article 345. It has been repeatedly held that if it is a matter of construction of the Constitution by the Parliament, the court will have to find out the expressed intention from the words of the Constitution or the Act, as the case may be, and if two constructions are possible, the court must adopt that which will ensure smooth and harmonies working of the Constitution and eschew the other which would lead to absurdity or give rise to practical inconvenience or make well established provisions of existing law nugatory. If the interpretation put forward by the petitioners is accepted, Article 345 will become a dead-letter in so far as subordinate courts are concerned, we cannot accept such an interpretation. The meaning of the word "control" used in Article 235 of the Constitution and the nature and scope thereof have been explained in Baradakanta Mishra v. High Court of Orissa . Referring to the earlier decisions of the court, it is held that the word 'control' includes disciplinary control and it is vested in the High Court to effectuate the purpose of securing independence of the subordinate judiciary. It is stated that the High Court is made the sole custodian of control over the judiciary, which is not merely the power to arrange the day-to-day working of the court, but includes something in addition to the mere superintendence of the court and over conduct and discipline of the Judges. The same view is reiterated in Chief Justice of Andhra Pradesh v. L.V.A. Dikshintlu , that will not cover the language to be used in the courts. Language is not a matter as between the High Court and the subordinate courts, but it is a matter relating to a litigant who approaches the subordinate court. That is why a separate provision is made in Article 345 of the Constitution which is in consonance with the previous legislative history. As seen from the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure and Code of Criminal Procedure, the determination of the language of court was left with the local Government previously and after the passing of the Constitution with the State Government. It is worthwhile referring to the following passage in the judgment of Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Prabhadhak Somiti v. Zila Vidyalaya Nirikshak :