Madurai, July 12: The Madras High Court bench here today dismissed two petitions after the advocate insisted on arguing in Tamil, holding that the Constitution clearly states that the language of the Supreme Court and High Courts “shall be in English”.
Justice S Manikumar said the court was constrained to dismiss the writ petitions “having regard to the constitutional provision and the binding effect of the Constitutional Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in Madhu Limaye Vs Ved Murthi Case in which the court held that the court language was English.”
The judge said when advocate Raj Narain insisted that he would speak only in Hindi, the Supreme court bench HAD pointed out that the Attorney General was opposing him (speaking in Hindi).
Some of the members of the Bench could not understand the arguments made in Hindi and the bench had observed that in the circumstances, it was futile to permit Raj Narain to speak in Hindi, the judge said.
The apex court had also given three alternatives to Raj Narain, including to argue in English, or allow another lawyer to present his case,or submit a written arguement in English.
If Raj Narain was not agreeable to the options, there was no other alternative except to cancel the intervention (dismissing), the judge said quoting the apec court. Similarly in this case also, Justice Manikumar said Advocate Bhagavath Singh had options which he could have taken, and dismissed the petitions.
Besides Art.348 of the Constitution of India clearly stated that the language of the Supreme courts and High courts “shall be in English”, the judge said.
One of the petitions dismissed today was by a woman Ayisha Banu had requested the court to direct the Ministry of Overseas Affairs to bring her husband back to India from Saudi Arabia.
The other was from Sundar Rajan of Kanayakumari who sought court's intervention to direct the executive officer of Karunkal panchayat in Kanyakumari district to give plan approval for his house.
The plea was also dismissed. In the first case, Banu submitted that her husband, who went to Saudi Arabia as an unskilled worker, had some minor problem with his roommates.
On a complaint from them, the owner of his company, New Sampirani, Sirako, had taken away his passport and driven him out. Now he had informed her that he was begging in Mecca.
Though she paid Rs.70,000 to an agent to bring him back, he had not taken any step in this regard. She was working as a labourer in a match factory and illiterate.
Hence the court should direct the officials to get her husband back.
