The Supreme Court in the case Rohit Jayantilal Patel vs. State Of Gujarat and Others observed and has declined to consider the plea moved advocating for Gujarati to be recognized as an additional language for court hearings in the Gujarat High Court.
The Division bench comprising of Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice SVN Bhatti was hearing the present plea.
In the present case, the petitioner, Rohit Jayantilal Patel, approached the Gujarat High Court wherein seeking the directive against the State Government to implement the then decision of Governor 2022, wherein it allowed the use of the Gujarati language alongside English in court proceedings before the High Court. Thus, the High Court dismissed the said plea, terming it ‘misconceived.’
The court observed that after the state assembly and cabinet committee approved the use of the Gujarati language in the High Court, the said matter was sent to the State’s Governor.
Therefore, the said matter was forwarded to the Supreme Court for its comments. Thus, the Supreme Court, through its decision on the administrative side of the Chief Justice of India in 2012, expressed disapproval.
The petitioner argued before the court that the Supreme Court had no role in the matter. The Public Interest Litigation, PIL moved also challenged the 1965 resolution of the Cabinet Committee introducing the role of the Chief Justice of India in the matter of using regional languages in the High Court.
However, the prayer was rejected by the High Court wherein it is stated that the issue, if any can be raised by the writ petitioner would not fall within the realm of jurisdiction of the said court and even decision of the CJI taken on the administrative side is binding on the High Court so if you have any kind of dispute with regards to an administrative decision of the CJI, you have to go to the Supreme Court.
The counsel appearing for the petitioner argued before the court that the High Court possesses unlimited jurisdiction, and judicial review is a fundamental aspect of the basic structure.
Adding to it, Justice Khanna responded that access to justice is not affected by the absence of Gujarati and questioned the significance of the argument.
Despite the attempts by the counsel to convince the bench, the bench of Justice Khanna reiterated that the bench is not entitled to entertain the prayer, emphasizing that there is no denial of access to justice.
The bench of Justice Khanna stated that, this court is very clear. There is no such withdrawal of access of Justice….Look, the things have worked., People have the right to access to justice. We go out of the way in case of there is any person facing difficulty. We Do that. Thus, we also hear arguments wherever required by the petitioners-in-person in the vernacular.
Accordingly, the court dismissed the plea.