Friday, July 12, 2013

Madras High Court rejects plea on arguing in Tamil. Dismisses case of woman trying to rescue her hubby from Saudi Arabia

High Court rejects plea on arguing in Tamil

DC | 

Madurai: The Madras high court bench here on Friday 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 constitutional bench judgment of the SC 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 SC 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 it was futile to permit Raj Narain to speak in Hindi, the judge said.

The apex court had 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. 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 clearly stated that the language of the SC and high courts "shall be in English", the judge said. One of the petitions dismissed on Friday was by a woman Ayisha Banu who 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  the 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.