Haryana govt refrains from making Hindi compulsory in subordinate courts - The Daily Guardian
Connect with us

Legally Speaking

Haryana govt refrains from making Hindi compulsory in subordinate courts

Industry had expressed surprise at the Bill passed by the state Assembly which mandated subordinate courts to function only in Hindi language. The exclusion of English will create practical hurdles for industries and corporations in the state of Haryana, especially in the commercial hubs of Gurugram and Faridabad which have attracted global talent, firms and capital.

Tarun Nangia

Published

on

In an action that is widely regarded as a move to encourage industry and global capital investment in Haryana, the state government of Haryana has refrained from issuing notification in matter of making Hindi compulsory in the subordinate courts of Haryana, almost two months after the Punjab & Haryana court heard and disposed of a petition which pleaded before the court that this decision this decision was a violation of fundamental rights.

It must be recalled that Haryana state assembly had passed a bill in the assembly which directed the mandatory use of Hindi as the sole language for work, including judicial work in all civil and criminal.

The state government, represented through Sr. Adv. Baldev Raj Mahajan, Advocate General for the state of Haryana, and Adv. Aman Bahri, Additional Advocate General for the state submitted before Justice Ranjan Gupta and Justice Karamjit Singh of the Punjab & Haryana High Court that, the legislation has been enacted, it has been clearly laid down that it shall come in force on such date, as the state government may, by notification in the official Gazette, appoint. However, no such notification has been issued, referring to the Section 1 (2) of Haryana Official Language (Amendment) Act, 2020. They further submitted that proper procedure would be followed in the eventuality notification under section 1(2) to be issued.

 The bench presided by Justice Rajan Gupta and Justice Karamjit Singh directed the petitioners Adv. Sameer Jain, Adv. Sandeep Bajaj, Adv. Angad Sandhu, Adv. Suvigya Awasti and Adv. Ananat Gupta they have the liberty to file a fresh petition in case notification to make Hindi mandatory in subordinate courts is issued by the state government, and the petition was disposed.

Since the Haryana state assembly passed the bill making Hindi compulsory in subordinate courts, this issue is being keenly watched by majority of national and international businesses operating out of the state of Haryana. The petitioner had moved the Punjab & Haryana High Court after the state government passed an amendment section 3A of the Haryana Official Languages Act 1969, whereby Hindi has been designated as the sole official language to be mandatorily used for conducting all work in the civil and criminal courts of Haryana.

 Aggrieved by the violation of their fundamental rights, the petitioners moved the Supreme Court on June 8, 2020, the court recognised the difficult created by the amendment, and permitted the petitioners to withdraw the petition and approach the Punjab & Haryana High Court.

The writ petition challenging constitutional validity of the Haryana Official Language (Amendment) Act, 2020 was listed before a three-judge bench of the Chief Justice of India Justice Sharad Arvind Bobde, Justice A.S. Bopanna J. and Justice Hrishikesh Roy J on 8 June 2020. The petitioners said that their amendment making Hindi mandatory impinged their fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The Petitioners argued that mandatory imposition of Hindi creates an arbitrary and unreasonable discrimination against such advocates who are not proficient in the Hindi language and adversely affects their right to freely practice the legal profession before any court in India.

Chief Justice Bobde said that English can be used with the permission of the court. But petitioner Adv. Sameer Jain pointed out that the amendment had barred the use of any language other than Hindi, following which the Apex Court was ready to issue notice, but Haryana Additional Advocate General Arun Bhardwaj argued before the Supreme Court out that the law under challenge was a state law and it would be better if the Punjab and Haryana High Court dealt with it. To which the petitioners responded that their right under Article 19(1) (g) and Article 14 of the Constitution to freely practice law without discrimination is being hampered. Hence the Supreme Court is the most convenient forum due to Covid-19 lockdown as the petitioners too reside in Delhi and Noida. The Supreme Court directed the petitioners to approach the High Court but gave them the liberty to approach the apex court in future, if required.  

“The exclusion of English will create practical hurdles for industries and corporations in the state of Haryana, especially in the commercial hubs of Gurugram and Faridabad, as well as commercial advocates and judges, most of whom obtain their legal training in the English language,” said Adv. Sameer Jain.

 While industry representatives like Rajinder Kumar, General Counsel and Company Secretary Indus Towers, said, “The discussion is whether in the state of Haryana, should work in sub-ordinate judiciary be done only in Hindi, I gave it a thought and felt, it should be bilingual. With Article 343 (1) the constituent assembly adopted Hindi language along with English as official language on September 14th 1949, for the whole county. Even the official languages Act 1963, amended in 1967, allowed bilingualism, which is English along with Hindi. Our country is an amalgamation of states. According to Article 348, English can be used in the Supreme Court, High Court, also bills passed by the state legislature and parliament have to be in English along with other languages. This means, the new amendment by the State of Haryana says that all other work regarding law in the government can be in English too but the court should function in Hindi only”

 Rajinder Kumar added that Haryana Official Languages Act, 1969, as original, was amended in 2020, the subsection 5 of the act said that unless the state government directs, by notification, English language can be used in addition to Hindi for legislative work in the state. Section 5 says English will continue to be used in addition to Hindi. Hence English will be allowed for legislative work but not in courts.

“Lawyers from Delhi, Noida, Ghaziabad and other areas of National Capital Region (NCR) travel to Haryana and file cases in the courts there. For all new lawyers graduating in law, Hindi is not even in optional language. Most lawyers are unable to argue in Hindi. The logic which they give when they pass the law, all their statements pertaining to evidence will be recorded in Hindi, but that too will be a problem for a large number of people as Haryana is a cosmopolitan state, were people from all over India and the world live,” said Rajinder Kumar.

English is widely used even in subordinate courts, there is no reason, why it should not be there at all. Idea is not to deprive those who don’t know Hindi. When you make Hindi mandatory, it is a kind of discrimination, between lawyers who speak Hindi and who don’t speak Hindi.

“The mandatory use of Hindi to the exclusion of other languages, especially English is bound to have inimical ramifications for commercial transactions and legal disputes arising therefrom. It will saddle the in-house legal teams and external counsels with the burden of gaining proficiency in the Hindi language and expensive translation and ancillary costs. Pertinently, English is invariably the language of commercial lawyers and adjudicators, a significant majority of whom have received legal training in the Queens language. The vast body of jurisprudence and literature on technical subjects and issues is also exclusively available in English and makes a vehement case for permitted use of English in commercial litigation in sub-ordinate courts of Haryana,” said Adv. Sameer Jain.

Pertinently, the amendment will also have a long lasting impact on the career of law students in the State of Haryana. The amendment will not only adversely affect students who are fluent in English, but will also harm the future of students who are comfortable in Hindi by impeding their practice before the higher judiciary.  

 It is likely that such a measure may have an unintended chilling effect on trade and commerce and calls for a clarification that use of English may be permitted as a matter of practice by the concerned Courts. Legally speaking, the amendment  imposes a discriminatory and arbitrary qualification for all advocates and company professionals to be fluent in the Hindi language, thereby creating an unconstitutional impediment under Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India. The amendment further unreasonably restricts the rights of advocates to practice before all courts and tribunals within the territory of India.

Once implemented, the effects of this legislation are likely to be felt strongly by corporate litigants in the state, especially the multitudes of companies carrying business and operating offices in commercial hubs of Gurugram and Faridabad. The supposed objective of the government action is to benefit Hindi speaking litigants in the state as they will have easy access to justice if judicial proceedings are carried and judgments are pronounced in Hindi. This will also ultimately fulfil the objective of promotion of Hindi as the official state language. While the objective seems sound in principle, it potentially casts a pernicious spell on the justice delivery mechanism by creating linguistic hurdles for corporations and legal professionals alike. The significance of prevalent use of English language for corporate communication including complex contracts as well as jurisprudence surrounding commercial laws has been belittled and may become an Achilles heel for all stakeholders. 

Tarun Nangia is the host and producer of Legally Speaking.

The Daily Guardian is now on Telegram. Click here to join our channel (@thedailyguardian) and stay updated with the latest headlines.

For the latest news Download The Daily Guardian App.

Legally Speaking

Who will be next APTEL Chairman ?

Tarun Nangia

Published

on

Who will be next APTEL Chairman ?

Justice Hemant Gupta, currently serving as Judge, Supreme Court of India may be appointed as the next Chairman of the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL). Justice Hemant Gupta’s tenure as Judge of Supreme Court comes to an end on October 16th.

Justice Gupta enrolled as an advocate in July 1980 and started practice in the District Court of Chandigarh. He entered in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana and worked on Civil, Labour, Company and Constitutional matters. In 1997 he was appointed Additional Advocate General of Punjab and elevated as a Judge of High Court of Punjab and Haryana on 2 July 2002. Justice Gupta was transferred to the Patna High Court in February 2016,[1] thereafter took over the charge of acting chief justice of the Patna High Court after the retirement of Justice Iqbal Ahmed Ansari on 29 October 2016. He was appointed the Chief Justice of the Madhya Pradesh High Court on 18 March 2017.In November 2018 he became Justice of the Supreme Court of India

Continue Reading

Legally Speaking

Delhi HC asks trial court to consider Sharjeel Imam’s bail plea for relief

Published

on

By

The Delhi High Court has instructed a trial court to first consider former JNU student Sharjeel Imam’s application for relief under Section 436-A CrPC on the grounds that he has been in custody for 31 months following a 2019 sedition FIR, in accordance with the Supreme Court’s directive to keep sedition cases on hold.

According to Section 436-A, a person might well be released on bail by the court after serving a sentence of up to one-half the maximum allowed for the offence against him up until the end of the trial.

Imam claims that because he has been imprisoned for more than a year and a half since his arrest in February 2020 and has served more than half of the maximum sentence of three years under Section 153A (promoting hostility among religious groups), he is entitled to the advantage of being released.

A speech that Imam delivered at Jamia Millia Islamia in 2019 is the subject of a charge against him that was filed at the New Friends Colony (NFC) Police station.

Justice Anoop Mendiratta asked the trial court to consider the Supreme Court’s order keeping the offence of sedition in abeyance when deciding whether to grant the applicant’s request for default bail on Monday (September 26), while permitting him to withdraw his application for regular bail in a 2019 sedition case.

Appearing for Imam, his counsel Ahmad Ibrahim told the judge that the trial court, while dismissing his bail plea, had only made observations against him with respect to offences under Section 153A and 124A (sedition) and opined that no case was made out under other offences.

The counsel argued that the only offence which now warrants consideration of the trial court during the hearing of bail plea is Section 153A as offence of sedition has been kept abeyance.

Special public prosecutor Amit Prasad told the court that Imam’s bail plea pending before High Court may be withdrawn in entirety, as it may not be appropriate to consider the application under Section 436A CrPC in a piecemeal with reference to Section 153A of IPC.

Continue Reading

Legally Speaking

Delhi High Court restrains Axis Bank from substituting PS Toll Road Pvt Ltd (PSTR) as the concessionaire of the Pune Satara Toll Road Project

Tarun Nangia

Published

on

Delhi high court

The Delhi High Court has restrained Axis bank from substituting PS Toll Road Pvt. Ltd (PSTR) as a concessionaire of the Pune Satara Toll Road Project. The order authored by Justice Anup Jairam Bhambani found Axis Bank in breach of its own undertaking given before the court.

The court says Axis Bank is bound by its undertaking given to the court in February 2021 & then in March 2021 that it will not go ahead with the substitution of the concessionaire in the PS Toll Road project, without the court’s nod.

Delhi HC says Axis Bank’s undertaking was unconditional, and therefore it cannot rely upon any event under the Concession Agreement or the Substitution Agreement, to appoint a new concessionaire in the project.

PS Toll Road Pvt Ltd (PSTR), the concessionaire of the Pune Satara Toll Road project, had challenged the appointment of a new concessionaire in the project by the Axis Bank despite a stay on the process by the Delhi HC in March 2021.

PS Toll Road Pvt Ltd, in its appeal before the Delhi HC, has contended that Axis Bank was in breach of its own undertaking given before the court in 2021, that it will not finalize the bids or award the contract to a third party, thereby substituting the PS Toll Road Pvt Ltd.

Sr. Adv. Neeraj Kishan Kaul with Sr. Adv. Dayan Krishnan and Adv. Mahesh Agarwal of Agarwal Law Associates (ALA) represented PS Toll Road Pvt. Ltd.

Court has issued notice to Axis Bank and the matter will be heard on 28 September.

PS Toll Road Pvt Ltd is a subsidiary of Reliance Infrastructure Ltd. and was awarded the contract for six laning of 140 KM of stretch between Pune and Satara in Maharashtra on BOT basis. The project is now complete.

Continue Reading

Legally Speaking

Supreme Court: Permanent injunction cannot be sought on the basis of an unregistered agreement to sell

Published

on

Supreme Court: Permanent injunction cannot be sought on the basis of an unregistered agreement to sell

The Supreme Court in the case Balram Singh vs Kelo Devi observed and stated that a relief of permanent injunction cannot be sought on the basis of such an unregistered document/agreement to sell.
The bench comprising of Justice MR Shah and Justice Krishna Murari observed that a plaintiff cannot get the relief indirectly which otherwise he/she cannot get in a suit for specific performance.
In the present case, a suit has been filled by the plaintiff praying for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from disturbing her possession in the suit property, which was claimed on the basis of the agreement to sell of which was an unregistered agreement/document to sell on ten rupees stamp paper. The suit was dismissed by the Trial Court by the original plaintiff and refused to grant permanent injunction and allowed the counter-claim of the defendant. However, the First Appellate Court reversed the Trial Court judgment and decreed the suit. The second appeal filled by the defendant was dismissed by the High Court.
In appeal, the defendant-appellant contended that an unregistered agreement to sell is not admissible in evidence and that the suit filed by the original plaintiff was only for permanent injunction and she did not seek the relief for specific performance of agreement to sell by adopting a clever drafting as she was well aware that she would not succeed in the suit filled for specific performance on the basis of an unregistered agreement to sell. On the other hand, it was contended by the respondent-plaintiff that an unregistered document can be used for collateral purpose and therefore both, the first appellate Court as well as the High Court have rightly passed a decree for permanent injunction while considering the agreement for selling of collateral purpose for grant of permanent injunction.
The Apex Court observed, while allowing the appeal:
However, having conscious of the fact that the plaintiff might not succeed in getting the relief of specific performance of such agreement to sell as the same was unregistered, a suit was filed by the plaintiff simplicitor for permanent injunction only. In a given case, it may be true that an unregistered document can be used and/or considered for collateral purpose and at the same time, the plaintiff cannot get the relief indirectly which otherwise he/she cannot get in a suit for substantive relief, namely, in the present case filled for the relief of specific performance. Thus, the plaintiff cannot get the relief even for permanent injunction on the basis of such an unregistered document/agreement to sell, more particularly when the defendant specifically filed the counter-claim for getting back the possession which was being allowed by the learned trial Court. It has been cleverly prayed by the plaintiff for a relief of permanent injunction only and did not seek for the substantive relief of specific performance of the agreement to sell as the agreement to sell was an unregistered document and therefore on such unregistered agreement/document to sell, no decree for specific performance could have been passed. By clever drafting, the plaintiff cannot get relief.
Therefore, the court restored the Trial Court judgment dismissing the suit and allowing the counter-claim.

Continue Reading

Legally Speaking

Supreme Court refuses to stay EC proceedings on Shinde’s claim, ‘real’ Shiv Sena tussle

Published

on

Who is real Shiv Sena? SC leaves it to EC to decide

On Tuesday, a constitution bench of the Supreme Court allowed the Election Commission of India to go ahead and decide Maharashtra Chief Minister Eknath Shinde’s claim that his faction represents the “real” Shiv Sena.
The bench comprising of Justice D.Y. Chandrachud dismissed the plea of Uddhav Thackeray camps to stay the ECI proceedings. It was argued by Mr. Thackeray that the Shinde faction was facing disqualification proceedings for defection under the 10th schedule and that the ECI should wait until the question of disqualification was decided.
The Supreme Court stated during the hearing that there was a bit of problem with Mr. Thackeray’s argument that the ECI proceedings under the Symbols Order of 1968 should be “stultified” merely because of a disqualification process against the Shinde function was pending before the Assembly Speaker.
Also, the bench comprising of Justice M.R. Shah, Krishna Murari, Hima Kohli and P.S. Narasimha stated that “we direct that there would be no stay of the proceedings before the Election Commission”.
It was observed that the Thackeray-led Maha Vikas Aghadi government had collapsed after a revolt by Mr. Shinde and the 39 other legislators against the Sena leadership.
On June 30, Mr. Shinde was sworn in as the CM along with BJP’s Devendra Fadnavis as his deputy.
The Supreme Court had referred to a five-judge bench on August 30, the plea filled by the Thackeray and Shinde-led factions raising several constitutional questions related to defection, disqualification and merger.
It was also stated that it had been asked the Election Commission Of India (ECI) not to pass any orders on the Shinde faction’s petition that it be considered the “real” Shiv Sena and be granted the party’s poll symbol.
However, the bench led by the then Chief Justice N.V. Ramana has said that the batch of petitions raise important constitutional issues which is relating to the 10th schedule of the Constitution pertaining to the disqualifications, power of the speaker and the governor, and judicial review.
It is provided by the 10th schedule of the Constitution for the prevention of defection of the elected and the nominated members for their political parties and contains stringent provisions against defection.
Earlier, it has been submitted by Thackeray faction that party MLAs loyal to Shinde can save themselves from disqualification under the 10th schedule of the constitution only by merging with another political party.
It has been contended by the Shinde group that the anti-defection law is not a weapon for a leader who has lost the confidence of his own party.

Continue Reading

Legally Speaking

Supreme Court Collegium Recommends To Elevate Bombay HC Chief Justice Dipankar Datta As Judge Of Supreme Court

Published

on

Supreme Court Collegium Recommends To Elevate Bombay HC Chief Justice Dipankar Datta As Judge Of Supreme Court

The Supreme Court Collegium has recommended to elevate Bombay High Court Chief Justice Dipankar Datta as a Judge of the Supreme Court.
Justice Datta is the son of a former Calcutta High Court Judge, late (J) Salil Kumar Datta and brother-in-law of Justice Amitava Roy, former Supreme Court Judge and was born in February 1965.
However, in 1989, he obtained his LL.B. degree from the University of Calcutta and was enrolled as an Advocate on November 16, 1989. Further, he worked as a Junior Standing Counsel for the State of West Bengal from May 16, 2002 to January 16, 2004 and as a Counsel for the Union of India since 1998.
From June 22, 2006., he worked as a Judge of the Calcutta High Court. On April 28, 2020., he was elevated as the Chief Justice of Bombay High Court.
He has passed several significant judgements as CJ of the Bombay High Court, including home vaccination for the bedridden and has directed a preliminary enquiry against Anil Deshmukh – Maharashtra Home Minister at the time, and an authoritative pronouncement on an illegal construction.

Continue Reading

Trending