Read Time: 08 minutes

Hearing a plea that sought directions ensuring that any communication between the Union of India and the State of Tamil Nadu shall be only in English, Madras High Court has directed the Union Government to strictly follow the provision of Section 3 of the Official Languages Act, 1963.

The Division Bench of Justice N. Kirubakaran and Justice M. Duraiswamy at Madurai Bench of the High Court held,

“One is entitled to submit a representation to any Agency or Officer of the Union or the States in any of the languages used in India or in the States. 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.”

Therefore, taking into consideration the provisions of the Official Languages Act, 1963 (the Act) and the Official Languages Rules 1976, the Court directed that the Union Government, other officers, and instrumentalities shall follow the concerned provisions of both the laws.

S.Venkatesan, the Member of Parliament representing Madurai Constituency, knocked Court’s door against the use of Hindi in the Centre’s reply given to him pursuant to his one representation.

Aggrieved over the reply given in Hindi, the MP moved the High Court seeking direction to ensure that the communication between the Union of India and the State of Tamil Nadu, its people and also with the Members of Parliament shall be in English alone and take appropriate action against the concerned officials, who are responsible for the violation.

However, in the counter affidavit Union stated that as soon as the Hindi reply was submitted, immediately, English version of the same was communicated to the Member of Parliament.

Union also submitted that there is no intention on behalf of the Union to violate the provisions of the Official Languages Act, 1963 and the Official Languages (Use for Official Purpose of the Union) Rules, 1976.

Stating that “When even an apprehension should not be created that a particular language is surpassed or sidelined in a multi-linguistic country like ours, a few chosen languages are getting princely status with enormous money allotted for development of those languages alone” Court said that it is clear from the Section 3 of the Official Languages Act, 1963, for the States which have not adopted Hindi as their official language, English will be used for the purpose of communication between the Union and the States.

The court said that the issue raised by the Petitioner is squarely covered by Section 3 of the Act and Admittedly, the State of Tamil Nadu has not adopted Hindi as its official language, whereas it has adopted two languages formally viz., Tamil and English.

Court also noted that as per Proviso to Section 1(a) of the Act, the Central Government is bound to use English for the purpose of communication with the State of Tamil Nadu.

Highlighting Article 345 of the Constitution, the court stressed that the Central Government is expected to respect the sentiments of the people. Court said,

“It would be appropriate and it is expected that the Central Government gives its reply to the citizens, in their respective language as stated in Article 350. If a representation is given as per Article 350 of the Constitution, reply should be given in the same language, so that, the people could understand the information.”

Court further added that it hopes that the Central Government would seriously consider amending Article 350, so that, not only representation is given in the languages of the Union or the States, but also reply is given in the same language used by the citizens.

Therefore, allowing the petition court issued directions to the Union and its instrumentalities. 

Case Title: S. Venkateshan v. Minister of State for Home Affairs, GOI and Ors.