Context:

• A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed before the Supreme Court recently, sought a direction to the Union Government to constitute a commission recommending Hindi as the official language of the Supreme Court.
• The petitioner argued this was firmly grounded in constitutional provisions.
• The Court’s response — and the constitutional framework behind it — raises a deeper question: who decides the language in which Indian courts function, and can accessibility be achieved without replacing one language with another?

The Supreme Court’s Response

• The SC Bench — comprising CJI Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana — made several key observations:
  • Language reforms are already underway in a phased manner through administrative measures.
  • Justice V. Mohana clarified that granting the relief sought would require a constitutional amendment.
  • The CJI noted the Court is already providing brief descriptions of its reports in Hindi, as part of preserving linguistic diversity and respecting regional languages — with plans to extend this to other regional languages.
• The key distinction drawn: Between changing the judiciary’s official language regime versus making judicial work more accessible in Indian languages — two very different propositions.

Who Decides? The Constitutional Framework

• Article 348(1)(a): Until Parliament legislates otherwise, English is the prescribed language for all proceedings before the Supreme Court and every High Court. Parliament has never enacted a law under this provision to replace English.
• Article 348(2): A State Governor, with the President’s prior consent, may authorise use of Hindi or another regional official language in High Court proceedings. However, such authorisation does NOT extend to judgments, decrees, or orders — these must still be in English.
• Section 7, Official Languages Act, 1963: Provides an additional mechanism allowing judgments, decrees, or orders in Hindi/regional languages, provided an authoritative English translation accompanies them.
• Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, and Bihar — each using Hindi in their respective High Courts, subject to presidential consent and other constitutional/statutory safeguards.

Separation of Powers: Why Courts Can’t Simply Order a Change

• The question of who has authority to alter the language regime invokes the doctrine of separation of powers between legislature, executive, and judiciary.
• Generally, courts cannot issue a writ of mandamus compelling Parliament to enact a law, amend the Constitution, or establish a commission for this purpose.
• Such matters fall squarely within Parliament’s legislative domain — explaining why the Supreme Court declined to direct the formation of a commission.

The Deeper Dilemma: One Language vs. Many Tongues

• Even if constitutional authority is settled, a practical dilemma remains: must a court speak in one language to communicate with a nation of many tongues?
• Judicial precedent on this — Madhu Limaye & Anr v. Ved Murti & Ors (1970):
  • The Supreme Court held: “the language of this Court is English.”
  • An intervener who insisted on arguing in Hindi was not permitted to participate, since Bench members could not follow his arguments.
  • This reinforces the Court’s practical recognition that a common language is essential for coherent judicial proceedings.

The Way Forward: Accessibility Without Replacement

• Analysts argue the solution isn’t replacing English with Hindi or any single language, but making judicial work accessible in multiple Indian languages while preserving a common working language for consistency.
• Key initiative — SUVAS:
  • SUVAS (Supreme Court Vidhik Anuvaad Software) is an AI-based translation tool.
  • It enables Supreme Court judgments to be translated into 16 languages.
  • This approach respects linguistic diversity while preserving consistency in how justice is administered.

Conclusion

• The push for Hindi as the Supreme Court’s official language runs into a firm constitutional wall — Article 348 reserves this change for Parliament, not the judiciary, and courts have historically insisted on a single working language for coherent proceedings.
• Yet the Court’s own incremental steps, from Hindi report summaries to AI-powered translation via SUVAS, suggest a more workable path: not swapping one language for another, but ensuring justice speaks in many tongues even as it is delivered in one.
• For justice to be truly accessible, it must not only be pronounced — it must be understood.