The Gujarat High Court has firmly rejected a litigant's request to present his case in the Gujarati language. This decision came after the petitioner challenged a certificate that denied him permission to argue as a party-in-person due to his lack of proficiency in English.
Court Upholds English as Official Language
Justice Aniruddha P Mayee delivered the ruling, dismissing the plea entirely. The court found no issues with the certificate issued by the high court committee in August 2025. This certificate declared the petitioner incompetent to argue his case personally because he could not express himself effectively in English.
The court stated clearly, "There is no infirmity in the certificate granted by the respondents. The Special Civil Application is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed." This statement reinforces the court's position on the matter.
Legal Basis for the Decision
A division bench previously ruled in the case of suo motu v Manish Kanaiyalal Gupta and Others. That ruling established English as the official language of the high court. Consequently, all case presentations must occur in English. No other language is permitted for arguments before the court.
The bench further clarified that no party-in-person can address the court in any language other than English. This rule stands unless a committee certifies the individual's competency in English. The court's stance leaves no room for exceptions based on regional languages.
Petitioner's Background and Court's Guidance
The respondents noted the petitioner's educational qualification as class 10. They observed he could not understand English, express himself in English, or explain case facts clearly in English. Due to these limitations, the court deemed him incompetent to assist personally.
The court advised the petitioner to engage an advocate of his choice. Alternatively, he could approach the high court legal services committee for assistance. Following this direction, the petitioner did seek help from the legal services committee. The committee then provided him with counsel to argue his current case.
Background of the Litigant's Challenge
The litigant originally challenged the certificate that refused him permission to argue his case personally. He claimed that insisting on English proceedings infringed upon his rights. Therefore, he sought formal permission to use Gujarati for his arguments.
Counsel for the judicial registrar-respondent countered this argument. They submitted that the petitioner could not insist on using Gujarati. They further noted that if the petitioner had to argue in English, he would require an interpreter to understand and conduct the proceedings. This point highlighted practical challenges in allowing non-English arguments.
In the overall view, the court found no infirmity in the certificate granted by the respondents. This decision underscores the high court's commitment to maintaining English as the sole language for legal arguments. It also emphasizes the importance of linguistic competency for personal representation in court.
