Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

The Bill passed in Hindi thus becomes the Act and a full-filedged law. Both the Original Act passed in Hindi as also its English translation are published in the State Gazette. It is therefore obvious that the Hindi version as also its English translation are authoritative. I am therefore unable to agree with Mr. Jagdish Swarup that the Act passed in Hindi cannot be looked into at all by either the High Court or the Supreme Court and cannot be used for any official purpose.

Mr. Jagdish Swarup has contended that if it be held that even the Hindi Act after assent has a legal existence, then there will be two Acts in respect of the same matter i.e., the Hindi Act as passed by the Legislature and assented to by the Governor and its English translation published under the authority of the Governor under Clause (3) of Article 348 of the Constitution. In my judgment this argument is based upon a misinterpretation of the provisions of Article 348 of the Constitution. It is wrong to say that the original Act as passed in Hindi and its translation under the authority of the Governor in English bring into existence two rival Acts. The correct position is that of the same Act there are two versions: one is the Hindi version and the other the English one. All that in my judgment Article 348(1)(b)(ii) and (iii) requires is that when two such versions are brought on the Statute Book the English translation will be deemed to be the authoritative text if there is a conflict between the two versions which normally there should not be.

It would be noticed that under the provisions of Article 348 of the Constitution the language of the Supreme Court and the High Courts is English though in the case of the latter the Governor with the previous consent of the President may direct the use of any other language. The Bills, Acts, Ordinances, Rules, Regulations orders or Bye-laws have to come up for interpretation both before the High Courts and the Supreme Court. If there was no provision for an English translation and its being treated as an authoritative text, there would be difficulty both in the High Courts as also in the Supreme Court because Bills, Acts, Ordinances, etc. from Bengal would be in Bengali, from Madras in Tamil, from Andhra in Telugu from Gujarat in Gujarati, from Maha-rashtra in Marathi and from U. P. in Hindi. In order to avoid this difficulty and inconvenience as also to bring in national homogeniety, it was provided that there should be an authoritative text in English until the Parliament by law otherwise provided. From what I have said above, fit is clear that both the Hindi version as also the English translation of a Bill, Act, etc., are valid. There is no competition between the two. It is only in case of conflict or divergence between the two versions that the question o authoritative text comes in.

The provision of the authoritative text in English which is mandatory under Clause (1) of Article 348 is not so in Clause (3). Clause (3) Only lays down that the English translation published as aforesaid shall be deemed to be the authoritative text in the English language under the Article. Authoritative text as such under Clause (1) is quite distinct from the authoritative text in the English language under Clause (3), Under Clause (3) a recognition has been given to the official language and the English translation has only been deemed to be an authoritative text in the English language.

This maintains the originality of the Bill or the Act or the Ordinance or the subordinate legislation in the official language while the English translation is merely an authoritative text in English. It is in no way a substitute or replacement of the original Bill or Act or subordinate legislation made or passed in the official language and assented to by the Governor under the other provisions of the Constitution. It cannot therefore be accepted that even under Clause (3) of Article 348 the only authoritative text is the English translation as was argued by the learned counsel.