A common language for justice

When a nation speaks in different tongues, how do its courts determine which language serves as its official language? This question was placed before the Supreme Court as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) on September 25, 2026. The petitioner requested a direction to the Union Government to constitute a commission that would recommend the use of Hindi as the official language of the Supreme Court, with the petitioner’s counsel arguing that the plea was firmly grounded in constitutional provisions.

The Bench, comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana, however, observed that reforms related to language were already being carried out in a phased manner through administrative measures. Justice V. Mohana clarified that granting such a relief would require a constitutional amendment. Further, the CJI noted that, as part of preserving the country’s linguistic diversity and respecting regional languages, the court was already providing brief descriptions of its reports in Hindi, with the initiative to be gradually extended to other regional languages.

In doing so, the court appeared to draw a distinction between changing the language regime of the judiciary and making its work more accessible in Indian languages. The distinction raises a deeper question: if judicial work is made accessible in multiple Indian languages, who has the authority to decide the language in which courts conduct their proceedings?

Who gets to decide?

For justice to be administered fairly, that question must ultimately be answered within the constitutional framework governing judicial language. Under Article 348(1)(a) of the Constitution, until Parliament provides otherwise by law, English is the prescribed language for all proceedings before the Supreme Court and every High Court. To date, Parliament has not enacted any law under this provision to replace English.

However, under Article 348(2), the Governor of a State, with the prior consent of the President, may authorise the use of Hindi or any other regional language used for the State’s official purposes in proceedings of the High Court. Yet, the proviso to Article 348(2) makes it clear that such authorisation does not extend to judgments, decrees or orders passed by the High Courts.

Further, Section 7 of the Official Languages Act, 1963, provides an additional mechanism for allowing judgments, decrees or orders in Hindi or any other language used for official purposes of the State concerned, provided an authoritative English translation accompanies them. This provision has enabled Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and Bihar to use Hindi in proceedings before their respective High Courts, subject to the previous consent of the President and other constitutional and statutory safeguards.

The next question is who has the constitutional authority to alter it. This question brings into play the doctrine of separation of powers between the legislature, the executive and the judiciary. Generally, the judiciary cannot issue a writ of mandamus compelling Parliament to enact a particular law, amend the Constitution or establish a commission for that purpose. Such matters fall within the Parliament’s legislative domain.

Even if the question of constitutional authority is settled, another dilemma remains: must a court speak in one language to speak to a nation of different tongues? How can the Supreme Court retain a common language for its proceedings and at the same time ensure that its work remains accessible? 

From a practical standpoint, the Supreme Court has recognised the importance of a common language in judicial proceedings. In Madhu Limaye & Anr v. Ved Murti & Ors (1970), the Court observed that “the language of this Court is English” and held that an intervener who insisted on addressing the court in Hindi could not participate as the members of the Bench could not follow his arguments. 

Perhaps, the way forward is not to replace one language with another, but to make the work of the court accessible in more Indian languages. For example, the Supreme Court’s SUVAS (Supreme Court Vidhik Anuvaad Software), an AI-based translation tool, enables judgments to be translated into 16 languages. 

Such an approach can respect linguistic diversity while preserving consistency in justice. To be truly heard, justice must not merely speak; it must also be felt and understood.

Sincy Wilson is Assistant Professor of Law, Vels University (VISTAS), and a legal researcher specialising in constitutional and administrative law, and international environmental law.