M.Venkatachalapathy v. Union of India & Ors.

In the High Court of Judicature at MadrasDated: 10.08.2009Coram:The Honourable Mr.Justice P.K.MISRAandThe Honourable Mr.Justice R.SUBBIAHWrit Petition No.1086 of 1998M.Venkatachalapathy.. Petitioner ..vs..1. Union of India, rep.by its Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Law, Justice & Company Affairs, New Delhi.2. State of TamilNadu, rep.by its Chief Secretary, Fort St.George, Chennai-9.3. The Registrar General, High Court, Madras... RespondentsPetition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indiafor issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 and2 namely, (i) Union of India, rep.by its Secretary, Governmentof India, Ministry of Law, Justice & Company Affairs, NewDelhi and (ii) State of TamilNadu, rep.by its Chief Secretary,Fort St.George, Chennai-9 to provide necessary funds andinfrastructure for appointment of 300 Translators (Tamil to English)in the Madras High Court.For Petitioner : Mr.N.R.Chandran, Sr.Counsel for Mr.D.I.J.RajakumarFor Respondents : Mr.K.Elango, A.S.G., for R1 Mr.K.Balasubramanian, Spl.G.P., for R2Mr.C.T.Mohan for R3 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ R.SUBBIAH, J.,This writ petition is filed by way of public interest by MadrasBar Association, represented by its Secretary, for issuance of aWrit of Mandamus, directing respondents 1 and 2 to provide necessaryfunds and infrastructure for appointment of 300 Translators (Tamilto English) in the Madras High Court.2. The facts, which are necessary to make such a prayer, asculled out from the affidavit filed in support of the petition andcounter filed by the respondents, are as follows:In the year 1956, the State of Tamil Nadu, passed the MadrasOfficial Language Act, 1956 (Act No.39/56), which provides for theadoption of Tamil as the language to be used for the officialpurposes of the State of Madras. Section 2 of the said Act providesthat the official language of the State of Madras shall be Tamil.Section 3 provides that English language shall continue to be usedfor all the official purposes of the State until the StateGovernment issued necessary Notification under section 4 of the Act.The State Government, in exercise of the powers conferred undersection 4 of the said Act, issued a Notification in G.O.Ms.No.563 of1969, Public (Tamil Development-I) dated 13.11.1969 officially foradopting Tamil language as the Court language in the SubordinateCourts with effect from 14.01.1970 and under the express terms ofNotification, Tamil alone to be the language of the SubordinateCourts for recording evidence. As per section 4-B(1) of the TamilNadu Official Language Act, Tamil shall be the language of all theCivil Courts, Criminal Courts, subordinate to the High Court,Tribunals and Rent Control Courts for writing judgments, decrees andorders. Under Section 4-B(2) of the said Act, the State Governmentis empowered to notify the date or dates from which the provisionsof Sub-section (1) of that Section shall come into force. Inexercise of the said powers, the State Government issued necessaryNotification in G.O.Ms.No.191, Law dated 13.11.1976 making Tamil asthe language to all Criminal courts, subordinate to the High Court,for writing judgments and orders. Thereafter, the Government hadissued a G.O.Ms.No.9, Law dated 18.01.1982 fixing the 1st day ofFebruary, 1982, as the date on which the provision of sub-section(1)of section 4-B of the Tamil Nadu Official Language Act shall comeinto force in respect of all the Civil Courts, Tribunals and RentControl Courts, subordinate to the High Court.3. The constitutional validity of the provisions of the TamilNadu Official Language Act, 1956, has been upheld by a Full Bench ofthis Court on 21.04.1994 in W.P.Nos.1059, 1148, 1294 of 1982 and4287 of 1984 and further the Full Bench upheld the introduction ofTamil as official language up to District level in the Subordinatejudiciary, Tribunals and other Statutory authorities. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4. So far as the High Court is concerned, as per Article 348(1)(a) of the Constitution of India, all the proceedings in the HighCourt are in English language. Moreover, in appeals, viz.,documents/judgments received from the Subordinate Courts are inTamil, then the same shall be translated into English by thetranslation department of this Court and the papers placed beforethe Hon'ble Judges, whether the Hon'ble Judges are familiar withTamil or not. Tamil is not at all used as the language of the HighCourt.5. Since the language of the subordinate courts, Tribunals andother authorities functioning under various statutes is Tamil, allorders, evidence and documentary in oral are invariably in Tamil.Orders VIII and IX of the Rules of the High Court Madras AppellateSide, 1965, enumerate the procedure that may be adopted in respectof the preparation of the records, (i) in appeals against originaldecrees of subordinate courts, and (ii) in proceedings (other thanOriginal side Appeals and Appeals against original decrees ofsubordinate courts in suits) including references. As per sub-rule3(iv) of the said Rules, the charges for the preparation of therecords pointed out by the parties including the charges fortranslation if any, shall be paid by the parties within 25 days fromthe date of the receipt of the bill from the Registrar. Rule 5 ofthe said Rules prescribes that except as provided in Rule 35, itshall not be necessary to translate into English any papers in Tamillanguage. Papers in languages other than Tamil shall be translatedinto English. Where it is necessary to translate any paper intoEnglish, it shall be done through Court. Further, as per Rule 14 ofthe same Order, Practitioners shall be responsible for all thetranslation and other charges for the preparation of the recordincurred on their behalf under these Rules. As per Rule 22 of thesaid Order, on the application of the appellant, the Registrar maygrant permission to prepare the record privately subject to paymentof comparison charges as prescribed. Similarly, as per Order IX Rule6(ii) of the said Rules, 1965, if the records required by the partyare in a language other than Tamil or English, it shall betranslated into English through the Court and for that, the partieshave to pay the charges prescribed by the Registry. 6. All the records received from the lower courts in appeal orrevision, as the case may be, are translated into English by thisRegistry. But, due to the limited staff, the system of translationby the Registry has not become possible. Since there are notsufficient translators, the members of the Bar themselves have spenttheir time in translating papers. Though a translating document oreven the oral evidence of a witness is the job of a specialist one,who has trained himself in that field, the result may be that thetranslation may not be accurate if made by a busy practitioner. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Under such circumstances, the writ petition is filed for the reliefsought for as stated supra. 7. The counter filed by the 3rd respondent, Registrar (General)on 07.08.2001 reveals that prior to 01.10.1984, the translators inthe High Court Establishment came under the category 'SpecialAssistants' in the High Court Service. Pursuant to therecommendation of the Pay Commission, the posts were merged with thepost of Assistant Section Officers. At present, the AssistantSection Officers are doing the work of Translators. They areattending to the work of translation relating to the cases bothCivil and Criminal, filed before the Supreme Court of India. In theyear 1994, a letter was addressed to the Government by this Courtfor sanction of 80 Assistant Section Officers (among other posts)for translation wing of this Court. But, the Government of TamilNadu sanctioned merely 6 posts of Assistant Section Officers for thetranslation work in this court vide G.O.Ms.No.900/Home/Cts.IIDepartment, dated 26.06.1995. Thereafter, this Court, once againaddressed the Government vide R.O.C.No.1333-A/94/G2 dated 08.05.1997dated 22.01.1999 and 29.01.1999 for sanction of additional posts andthe Government in G.O.Ms.No.526 Home (Cts.II) Department have issuedorders sanctioning certain additional posts to this Court. 8. Mr.N.R.Chandran, learned senior counsel appearing for thepetitioner, by placing reliance on various judgments of this Courtreported inP.PERUMAL AND OTHERS .vs.. STATE OF TAMIL NADU, ETC., ANDOTHERS (1994 WRIT L.R.24) M.S.SARASWATHI AND OHERS ..vs.. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU,REP.BY THE SECRETARY, HOME (COURTS V DEPARTMENT, AND THEREGISTRAR, HIGH COURT, MADRAS (1996 WRIT L.R.267), R.KUMAR AND OTHERS, STATE OF TAMIL NADU, REP.BY ITSSECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT AND THE REGISTRAR, HIGH COURT,MADRAS AND THE OFFICIAL ASSIGNEE, HIGH COURT, MADRAS (1996WRIT L.R.230) andT.N.CIVIL COURTS SENIOR BAILIFFS ASSN., vs.. THE SECRETARYTO GOVT., FINANCE DEPT. & THE REGISTRAR, HIGH COURT, MADRAS(1995 WRIT L.R.845),elaborately made his submission with regard to the plight of thelitigants and hardship undergoing by the advocates in translatingthe records, judgments, evidence of the subordinate courts andinsisted for the immediate appointment of Translators. Further, thelearned Senior counsel made his submission on the lines with regardto the recommendation made by the High Court for appointment ofTranslators that it is not permissible to disregard therecommendation of the Chief Justice of the High Court. Such anattitude of the Government is wholly impermissible with regard tothe object of Article 229. Further, he submitted that the delay inappointing Translators is also one of the reasons for pendency of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ cases in the High Court. Thus, he prayed for immediate appointmentof Translators.9. Heard the learned counsel for both sides.10. This writ petition is of the year 1998. By taking intoaccount the plight of the litigants and the sufferings of theadvocates in translating the judgments and evidence of thesubordinate courts and the counter filed by the 3rd respondent,which reveals that this Court has addressed several letters to theGovernment for appointment of Translators, we are of the view thatthe Government should have taken action in appointing Translators inthe High Court. Due to the introduction of Tamil as language in thesubordinate courts, majority of the judgments are being written inTamil by the subordinate courts and the evidence is also beingrecorded in Tamil. Article 348(1)(a) of the Constitution of Indiaspecifically provides that the language of High Court shall be inEnglish. 11. So far, the language of the High Court is in English andTamil is not used as a language of the High Court. Therefore, theRegistry is required to translate the records in English by theTranslation Department of this Court and the papers are placedbefore the Hon'ble Judges irrespective of the fact as to whether theJudges are familiar with the language of Tamil or not. Iftranslation has not been done, it will be very difficult to placethe matters before the Hon'ble Judges, who are from outside Statesand who are not conversant with the Tamil language. The poorlitigants should not be put to suffer by taking the task oftranslating the judgments, evidence, etc., on their own, which wouldincur huge expenses, besides consuming excessive time. Moreover, itis appalling, due to the inadequate staff, the translation in mostof the matters got delayed which consequently has delayed thehearing of the cases by the Court. To illustrate, recently due towant of translation, the hearing of a criminal case, known as'Saravana Bhavan Hotel case' got delayed for a considerable lengthof time and another criminal case, namely 'Coimbatore bomb blastcase' would not be heard by a Division Bench for want oftranslation. For example, in Rajiv Gandhi case, the Government inG.O.Ms.No.411, Home dated 03.04.1998, sanctioned 100 posts ofAssistant Section Officers temporarily for a period of three monthsfor the specific purpose of translating the judgment and otherconnected documents. These incidents would speak voluminous for theemergent need of appointment of Translators for quick and effectiveadministration of justice.12. In fact, the counter filed by the 3rd respondent would showthat this Court addressed a letter as early as in the year 1994 forappointment of Assistant Section Officers for translation. But the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Government has sanctioned six posts only. Though presently onlyfew Judges are from outside States, till the situation forappointing the Translators is in existence. 13. In this regard, learned senior counsel for the petitionerhas placed catena of decisions and submitted that when arecommendation is made by the Chief Justice, it is not permissiblefor the Government to disregard the recommendations and to persistin holding a contrary view and the recommendations of the High Courtcannot be ignored for flimsy reasons. The counter filed by the 3rdrespondent would show that the Registry is not in a position totranslate the documents in a full-fledged manner due to want ofstaff. The statistics particulars would show that nowadays filing ofappeals against the judgments of the civil and criminal subordinatecourts are increasing year after year. Under such circumstances,the poor litigants should not be made to suffer, merely for thepurpose of translation on the ground of inadequate strength. ThisCourt, on several occasions, had sent letters to the Government toconsider the matter in the hope that the Government after suchconsideration, would recognise the just claim of the petitioner andact in accordance with the recommendations that had been made by theHon'ble the Chief Justice of this Court. In the light of the abovesituation, we are of the considered view that it is necessary toissue a mandamus to the Government to increase the strength of theTranslators in the High Court after having consultation with theHigh Court by taking into consideration the present scenario. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the 1strespondent is hereby directed to provide necessary funds andinfrastructure for appointment of sufficient number of Translatorsby taking the present scenario into consideration and havingconsultation with the High Court, within a period of six months fromthe date of receipt of a copy of this Order. No costs.glSd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarTo1. The Secretary to Union of India, Government of India, Ministry of Law, Justice & Company Affairs, New Delhi. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2. The Chief Secretary, State of TamilNadu, Fort St.George, Chennai-9.3. The Registrar General, High Court, Madras.+ 1 cc to Mr. D.I.J. Rajakumar, Advocate, SR No.37468+ 1 cc to the Government Pleader, SR No.37385GV(CO)SR/19.8.2009 Order in W.P.No.1086 of 1998