Report No. 216
The Bar Council of Tamilnadu and Puducherry
Resolution No.189 of 2007 dated 24.11.2007
"It is unanimously resolved to strongly oppose the recommendations of the Committee of Parliament ton Official Language to amend the Article 348 of Constitution of India as appeared at Page No.112 in Madras Law Journal (2007) Part 5. The proposal for delivering the Judgments of the Supreme Court and High Courts in Hindi will certainly jeopardise the rights of the people, various Government Officers and Members of Bar and Bench in the non-Hindi speaking areas.
This move may be dropped immediately and the existing system of delivering judgments in English should continue. It is further resolved to send a detailed memorandum to the Chairman, Law Commission, Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India with a copy to Bar Council of India and all State Bar Councils."
"With reference to the appeal of the Law Commission to the Bar regarding amendment of Article 348 (d) and (e) of the Constitution of India, we have already forwarded to you a copy of the unanimous resolution passed by us in respect of the above subject.
In continuation of the same, we are hereby furnishing a Memorandum on the subject for your perusal and consideration:-
(a) The proposed amendment to the Constitution suggested by the Committee of Parliament on Official Languages is not accepted by the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry.
(b) The proposed amendment will impose an unknown language on a large section of Indian population much against their wish.
(c) This will lead a lot of practical problems in concluding cases in the High Courts as most the Judges, Advocates and almost all the litigant public are not conversant with Hindi language.
(d) Enforcing propagation of an unknown language on a large section of the population may disturb the common fabric of India and may result in social disturbances as well as law and order problems.
In the circumstances, we, the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry strongly oppose any move to replace English with Hindi language in High Courts and Supreme Court."
Though opinions have been sought from Dr. Justice A.S. Anand, Justice R.C. Lahoti, Justice S.N. Variava, Justice Ruma Pal, Shri Arun Jaitley, Shri K. Parasaran, Shri Soli Sorabjee and Shri Rajiv Dhawan, there was no response. Likewise, there was no response from the Supreme Court Bar Association, Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association, Karnataka High Court Advocates' Association, and the High Court Association of Madras, Mumbai, Calcutta, New Delhi, Himachal Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Patna, Punjab and Haryana, Rajasthan.