Madhu Limaye & ANR Vs. Ved Murti
& Ors [1970] INSC 182 (10 September 1970)
10/09/1970 HIDAYATULLAH, M. (CJ)
HIDAYATULLAH, M. (CJ) SHELAT, J.M.
BHARGAVA, VISHISHTHA MITTER, G.K.
VAIDYIALINGAM, C.A.
RAY, A.N.
DUA, I.D.
CITATION: 1971 AIR 2608 1971 SCR (1) 145
ACT:
Supreme Court-Language of court is
English-Intervener seeking permission to argue in Hindi-Such permission, could
not be extended when counsel on both sides and several members of Bench could
not follow arguments in Hindi- Alternatives suggested by court not accepted by
intervener- Intervention must be cancelled.
HEADNOTE:
R was allowed to intervene in a petition for
a writ of habeas corpius under Art. 32 of the Constitution. He was allowed, at
hi-, request,. to address the court in Hindi but counsel on both sides as well
as several members of the Bench were unable to follow his argument. He was
asked by the court to address the court in English, or to allow his counsel to
present his case, or to give written arguments in English. He refused to accept
any of these suggestions.
HELD : In the circumstances it was futile to
allow the intervener to continue his arguments in Hindi. The language of the
court being English and the intervener not being agreeable to any of the
suggestions made to him, the only alternative for the court was to cancel his
intervention.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition No. 307
of 1970.
Petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution of
India for a writ in the nature of habeas corpus.
Petitioner No. 1 appeared in person.
K. Rajendra Chaudhuri and Pratap Singh, for
petitioner No. 2.
C. D. Daphtary, L. M. Singhvi and O. P. Rana,
for the respondents.
Niren De, Attorney-General, R. H. Dhebar, H.
R. Khanna, S. P. Nayar and R. N. Sachthey, for Attorney-General and Union of
India.
S. C. Agarwal, D. P. Singh and Rai Narain (in
person), for the intervener.
ORDER Mr. Rai Narain yesterday insisted on
arguing in Hindi. He was heard for some time with a view to see whether we
could follow him, simply because this is a habeas petition involving the
liberty of the citizen. Because of the importance of the case, we heard him for
some time, but the Attorney-General, Mr. Daphtary who is opposing him and some
of the members of the Bench could not understand the arguments made in Hindi
yesterday. In these circumstances, it is futile to permit Mr. Raj Narain to
continue his 146 arguments in Hindi. He has a counsel Mr. D. P. Singh already
in attendance and helping him. We suggested the following three alternatives,
(a) that he may argue in English; or (b) he may allow his counsel to present
his case; or (c) he may give his written arguments in English.
The language of this Court is English (see
Art. 348 of the Constitution). If Mr. Raj Narain is not agreeable to these
suggestions, and we understand, he is not, the only alternative for us is to
cancel his intervention. We order accordingly.
G.C.
Back
