Gujarat High Court Upholds English as Official Language, Dismisses Plea for Gujarati Proceedings
The Gujarat High Court has firmly dismissed an application from a man seeking to represent himself in Gujarati, emphasizing that English remains the official language of the court. This decision underscores the judiciary's commitment to maintaining legal clarity and procedural integrity in high-stakes cases.
Court Rejects Application for Competence Certificate
On Thursday, a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice D N Ray heard the plea from applicant Amrutlal Parmar. He had appealed against the decision of the Competence Certificate Committee, which denied him a 'competence certificate' due to his inability to present his case in English. This certificate is crucial as it allows a petitioner to appear before the court as a party-in-person, representing themselves without legal counsel.
The court explained that appearing in person in High Court proceedings is not an inherent right but a privilege granted based on the committee's assessment of the applicant's competence. In this instance, the committee found Parmar lacking in the necessary linguistic skills to navigate the complex legal environment.
Court Advises Appointment of Lawyer to Safeguard Case
To prevent any disadvantage to Parmar during the legal proceedings, the court orally advised him to apply to the High Court Legal Service Committee for the appointment of a lawyer. This recommendation was made to ensure that his case is not jeopardized by misunderstandings or procedural errors that could arise from language barriers.
The bench highlighted the importance of understanding legal proceedings, stating, "The decision to not issue the competence certificate has been taken to prevent disadvantage to the applicant during the proceedings." They further elaborated, "You do not understand English; we do not understand Gujarati. The lawyers of the opposing parties will also make submissions in English. You will not understand the proceedings; this is not a language of common conversation, but a legal language."
Emphasis on Legal Language and Understanding
The court stressed that fighting a case effectively requires a deep understanding of legal terminology and procedures. They noted that Parmar had studied only up to the SSC level and had not pursued law, which could hinder his ability to comprehend the nuances of court discussions and orders.
"This is not a platform to give speeches or for you to gain anything else out of it. You need to represent your case well and understand things legally," the court asserted. They added, "We also dictate orders in English, and you may not understand what is going on in the proceedings of your court."
While Parmar mentioned that he had previously appeared as a party-in-person in other cases, the court maintained that each situation is evaluated independently based on the specific requirements and complexities involved.
Broader Implications for Legal Representation
This ruling reinforces the critical role of language in the judicial process, ensuring that all parties can fully participate and comprehend the proceedings. It also highlights the judiciary's proactive approach in guiding litigants towards appropriate legal assistance to uphold fairness and justice.
The case serves as a reminder of the challenges faced by individuals navigating the legal system without proficiency in the official court language, and the importance of seeking professional legal representation to protect one's interests.
