Madras High Court Advocates Association challenges 1965 Union Cabinet decision to continue English as common language for Supreme Court and all High Courts

MHAA has contended that the bar imposed on use of regional languages in High Courts violates Articles 14 (right to equality), 19 (freedom of speech and expression) and 21 (right to life) of the Constitution.

The Madras High Court Advocates Association (MHAA) has filed a public interest litigation petition in the High Court challenging the constitutional validity of an Union Cabinet Committee’s 1965 decision that English should continue as the common language for the Supreme Court and all High Courts in the country until it could be replaced with Hindi.

First Division Bench of Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan would be hearing the case on Monday (November 2, 2026). MHAA has contended that the bar imposed on use of regional languages in High Courts violates Articles 14 (right to equality), 19 (freedom of speech and expression) and 21 (right to life) of the Constitution.

In his affidavit MHAA secretary S. Arivazhagan said, the association came to know about the 1965 Cabinet decision only last year from an advocate who had obtained the details under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 and hence it had chosen to challenge it now. The assocation did not want the Cabinet decision to hamper the long pending demand to make Tamil as the official language of Madras High Court.

MHAA said, a conference of Chief Justices of all High Courts in the country was held in the first week of March 1965 under the chairmanship of the then Chief Justice of India (CJI) P.B. Gajendragadkar. The resolutions passed in the conference were not released to the press but they were forwarded to Prime Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri, Union Home Minister Gulzarilal Nanda and all Chief Ministers on March 26, 1965.

The CJI’s letter to the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) stated that the conference had recommended that the Supreme Court and all High Courts should have a common language, English should continue to be such common language “until in due course Hindi becomes rich and ripe enough to take its place” and that regional languages should not be introduced as languages of High Courts.

Subsequently, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) put up a note before the Cabinet Committee, constituted to consider different aspects of regional language policy, on May 17, 1965. The note read that there would be difficulty in elevating High Court judges to the Supreme Court and also in the appearance of lawyers before various High Courts and the Supreme Court if there was no common language for these courts.

“One of the major unifying factors in the country is a unified judicial system with a common language and uniform way of functioning in High Courts. Nothing should be done that is likely to weaken the present system. There can be little doubt that if regional languages were permitted to be used in the High Courts, we would be moving towards fragmentation of the judicial system, and it would not be possible to maintain for long the unitary character of the judicial system with the Supreme Court at the apex. An all-India bar of any sort cannot also continue to exist,” the note read.

The MHA said, the Cabinet may accept the recommendation of the Chief Justices’ conference that the Supreme Court and all the High Courts in the country should have a common language and that English should continue to be used until Hindi could take its place.

On Article 348(2) of the Constitution which empowers the Governors, with the previous consent of the President, to authorise the use of regional languages in the High Court proceedings (but for judgements, decrees or orders passed by the court), the MHA said, the President would be justified in denying consent since the CJI as well as the Chief Justices of the High Courts were opposed to introduction of regional languages.

“It might also be desirable to adopt a convention whereby the CJI would be consulted before the President gave his consent to any such proposal,” the MHA note read. The Cabinet Committee considered the note and approved it on May 21, 1965.

Questioning as to how a new procedure of consulting the CJI could be introduced by way of an executive decision when Article 348(2) does not pescribe any such requirement, MHAA said, though it was not against any consultation with the judiciary, its grievance was actually against the requirement of such consultation being treated as the need to obtain mandatory consent from the CJI.

MHAA said, the Centre had shot down proposals sent by the Tamil Nadu government in December 2006 and June 2014 to permit the use of Tamil in the proceedings of the Madras High Court and the fate of a latest resolution passed by the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly on September 3, 2026 was not known yet. It insisted that the Centre must be called upon to disclose its decision.

The association also brought it to the notice of the court that there was no uniformity in considering similar proposals from other States. It said, the proposals sent by the governments in West Bengal, Gujarat and Karnataka in 1997, 2012 and 2014 respectively to permit the use of Bengali, Gujarati and Kannada in their High Court proceedings were rejected by the Centre.

On the other hand, Rajasthan High Court was permitted to use Hindi way back in 1950 itself and the States of Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and Bihar had been allowed to use Hindi in their High Courts since 1969, 1971 and 1972 respectively pursuant to orders of the Governors under Article 348(2) and Presidential consent thereto.

“The authorisations for Hindi in Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and Bihar demonstrate that English need not remain the exclusive language of every High Court proceeding,” the MHAA concluded.

The Madurai Bar Association of Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, represented by its secretary R. Venkatesan, too has filed a separate PIL petition seeking a declaration that the litigants have a right to file pleadings, advance oral arguments and receive judgements, orders and decrees in a language they understand.

The case, filed through advocate M. Velmurugan, also insists on issuing a direction to the Centre to take all necessary steps required under Article 348(2) of Constitution and Section 7 of the Official Languages Act, 1963 to declare Tamil to be the primary language of the Madras High Court and its Madurai Bench.