Once A Representation Is Given in English It Is The Duty Of Central Govt. To Give The Reply In English: Madras High Court

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court recently directed the Centre to strictly follow the provisions of the Official Languages Act while emphasizing that once a representation is given in English, the Centre is dutybound to respond in English.

A Division Bench comprising of Justice N Kirubakaran and Justice M Duraiswamy issued the direction while allowing a Public Interest Litigation filed by Madurai Lok Sabha MP S. Venkatesan seeking a direction to use English in all communications between the Centre and the State, its MPs and the people.

The plea filed under Article 226 had also sought a direction to initiate appropriate action against the concerned officials responsible for violating the said procedure. 

Last year, the petitioner had written a letter requesting to set up examination centres for CRPF paramedical staff recruitment at Tamil Nadu and Puducherry. However, the Minister for Home Affairs replied to his letter in Hindi. 

Aggrieved by this action of the Centre, the Member of Parliament knocked on the doors of the Court. Advocate M. Purushothaman appeared for the petitioner. 

Responding to the petition, a counter-affidavit was filed by the respondent admitting the necessity to use English in the communications between the Union and the States which have not adopted Hindi as their official language.

ASG L. Victoria Gowri appearing on behalf of the respondents further submitted that although the reply was submitted in Hindi, an English version of the same was immediately communicated to the petitioner.

They also asserted that there was no intention to violate the provisions of the Official Languages Act, 1963 and the Official Languages (Use for Official Purpose of the Union) Rules, 1976 by such communication. 

Key Findings Of The Court: 

The Bench embarked on its judgment while featuring the importance of language in the country. 

"When a country's masses have different cultural, linguistic, ethnic and religious identities, the same shall be maintained and protected in the interest of the unity of our great country. If any attempt is made to disturb or destroy or interfere with any of the aforesaid issues, especially languages, it could become a sensitive issue."

The Centre explained that its reply to the letter was inadvertently made in Hindi and that the violation was not intentional. However, the Court found that if as claimed, the mistake was inadvertently made, it would have immediately responded to the petitioner's representation, and ought to have sent an English version.

Noting the Union's failure to do the same, the Bench took a firm view that the respondent would not have replied if not for the notice ordered by the Court. Therefore, it was held that the reason given by the Centre was not bonafide. 

Additionally, the Court cited Article 350 of the Constitution, which states that every person is entitled to give representation in any of the languages used in the Union or the state. Hence, it added that once a representation is given in English, it is the duty of the Centre to reply in English in consonance with the Official Languages Act.

On a lighter note, it was also suggested by the Court that the Central Government should seriously consider amending Article 350 to the effect that apart from representations being given in the languages of the Union or the States, the reply should also be given in the same language used by the citizens.

Moving on, the panel also pointed out that the provisions of the Official Languages (Use for Official Purpose of the Union) Rules, 1976 were not applicable to the State. 

This exception given to the State clarifies that the Central Government shall use English for official purposes and that the official language of India (Hindi) cannot be used for official correspondence with the State of Tamil Nadu, it was decided. 

The Court also noted that there were several similar incidents where the officials of the Central Government were responding in Hindi alone.

It was reiterated that the right to expression or freedom of speech is definitely enshrined in Article 19(1) of the Constitution of India.

"One could understand the information and expression only in the known languages. When a right is given under Article 19 (1) of the Constitution regarding freedom to write and freedom of expression, it is the duty of the Central Government to use English."

Condemning linguistic fanaticism, the Court further observed that language was a very sensitive issue and should be approached very sensibly. It cited the instance where when Hindi was made compulsory, protest erupted throughout the State, eventually leading to a change of Government in 1967.

The sensitivity of the issue continues till date in Tamil Nadu. At this juncture, it is important for the authorities to abide by the law in force with respect to the usage of languages, the Bench added.

Similarly, the Court elaborated that the purpose of publication in vernacular languages was only to see that the information reaches the local people.

Recording the same, the Bench directed the Union government and all its instrumentalities to strictly comply with the Official Languages Act as well as the Official Languages Rules, 1976.

"Central Government is dutybound to follow the provisions of the official languages Act. Once a representation is given in English, it is the duty of the Union Government to give a reply in English only which will also be in consonance with the statute, viz., the Official Languages Act."

Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed.

Case Title: S. Venkatesan v. Minister of State & Ors.

Click Here To Download The Order