When the plea came up, the bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan was informed that a similar plea has been filed by the advocates' association in Madurai, but has not been listed yet. The court thus adjourned the plea to next week.

The Association has challenged the cabinet's decision arguing that it is against Article 348(2) of the Constitution, which expressly permits any other language used for any official purpose of the State. The Association submitted that by stating that regional language should not be introduced for the High Courts, the cabinet has made Article 348(2) a dead letter.

The Association further submitted that while the High Courts in some of the Hindi speaking states have been permitted to use Hindi, the proposals by non-Hindi speaking states to permit usage of regional language in the High Courts has been rejected. The Association submitted that Hindi is placed on similar footing as “any other regional language” under Article 348(2) and any contrary treatment to any particular state is against the Right to Equality and the Right against Discrimination on the basis of language under Article 14 of the Constitution.

The Association states that as per Article 348(2) the relevant functions are to be carried out by the President and the Governor. However, the cabinet decision has created another consenting authority, the Chief Justice of India, which is not permissible under law. It was submitted that the provision does not mandate judicial concurrence requirement and though appropriate weightage could be given to judicial concern, it cannot be treated as a command.

The Association also states that such veto power on the CJI is contrary to the doctrine of separation of powers.

The Association further points out that a litigant, who may not be able to follow the arguments, may not be able to identify factual errors or understand the court's reasoning. It added that while representation by advocates reduces the barrier, it does not remove it wholly. The Association argued that Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution support effective and non-arbitrary access to justice and thus, to ensure access to justice and open proceedings, it was imperative to remove the language barrier and to permit usage of regional languages.

The Association thus seeks to declare that the continued usage of Cabinet's 1965 decision is contrary to Articles 348, 344, 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution, and to quash the decision.

The Association has also sought directions to the Tamil Nadu government to forward its 2006 and 2026 resolution, to make Tamil an official language of the High Court, for presidential consent.