Madhu Limaye And Anr vs Ved Murti & Ors
- SCC(1970) 3 SCC 738
- Neutral1970 INSC 181
- AIRAIR 1971 SC 2608
- SCR[1971] 1 SCR 145
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where the language of the Supreme Court is English as specified in the Constitution, and an intervener insists on arguing in Hindi, and counsel on both sides and members of the Bench cannot understand the arguments presented in Hindi, and the intervener refuses the alternatives offered to him—namely, to argue in English, to allow his counsel to present his case, or to submit written arguments in English—the court must cancel the intervention as it is futile to permit him to continue.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
ACT: Supreme Court-Language of court is English-Intervener seeking permission to argue in Hindi-Such permission, could not be extended when counsel on both sides and several members of Bench could not follow arguments in Hindi- Alternatives suggested by court not accepted by intervener- Intervention must be cancelled.
HEADNOTE: R was allowed to intervene in a petition for a writ of habeas corpius under Art. 32 of the Constitution. He was allowed, at hi-, request,. to address the court in Hindi but counsel on both sides as well as several members of the Bench were unable to follow his argument. He was asked by the court to address the court in English, or to allow his counsel to present his case, or to give written arguments in English. He refused to accept any of these suggestions. HELD : In the circumstances it was futile to allow the intervener to continue his arguments in Hindi. The language of the court being English and the intervener not being agreeable to any of the suggestions made to him, the only alternative for the court was to cancel his intervention.
JUDGMENT:
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition No. 307 of 1970. Petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India for a writ in the nature of habeas corpus. Petitioner No. 1 appeared in person. K. Rajendra Chaudhuri and Pratap Singh, for petitioner No.
2. C. D. Daphtary, L. M. Singhvi and O. P. Rana, for the respondents.
Niren De, Attorney-General, R. H. Dhebar, H. R. Khanna, S. P. Nayar and R. N. Sachthey, for Attorney-General and Union of India.
S. C. Agarwal, D. P. Singh and Rai Narain (in person), for the intervener.
ORDER Mr. Rai Narain yesterday insisted on arguing in Hindi. He was heard for sometime with a view to see whether we could follow him, simply because this is a habeas petition involving the liberty of the citizen. Because of the importance of the case, we heard him for sometime, but the Attorney-General, Mr. Daphtary who is opposing him and some of the members of the Bench could not understand the arguments made in Hindi yesterday. In these circumstances, it is futile to permit Mr. Raj Narain to continue his 146 arguments in Hindi. He has a counsel Mr. D. P. Singh already in attendance and helping him. We suggested the following three alternatives,
(a) that he may argue in English; or
(b) he may allow his counsel to present his case; or
(c) he may give his written arguments in English. The language of this Court is English (see Art. 348 of the Constitution). If Mr. Raj Narain is not agreeable to these suggestions, and we understand, he is not, the only alternative for us is to cancel his intervention. We order accordingly.
G.C. 147
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free