<p>While hearing a plea challenging the "mandatory" imposition of Hindi in courts of Haryana, the Supreme Court observed that there is no problem if English was allowed to be used with the court's permission <em>(Sameer Jain & Ors v. State of Haryana & anr).</em></p>.<p>Though the plea has now been ordered to be withdrawn with permission to approach the Punjab & Haryana High Court, the Bench led by Chief Justice of India <strong>SA Bobde</strong> observed that vernacular languages were used in subordinate courts even during British rule.</p>.<p>CJI Bobde observed,</p>.<p><em>"With the advent of more and more people coming to the profession with access to justice reaching out, then 80% don't know English. When British ruled India, language used in subordinate courts was vernacular. Take MP, its Hindi there too."</em></p>.<p>Counsel for the state of Haryana submitted that since it was a writ petition challenging the state legislation, the petitioners should approach the High Court.</p>.<p>On May 27, a group of five advocates practicing in courts of Delhi, Uttar Pradesh and Haryana challenged the constitutionality of the <em>Haryana Official Language (Amendment) Act, 2020,</em> which was contended to have "arbitrarily" made Hindi as the official language of courts in Haryana.</p>.<p>Lawyers <strong>Sameer Jain, Sandeep Bajaj, Angad Sandhu, Suvigya Awasthi </strong>and <strong>Anant Gupta</strong> assailed the amendment made to <strong>Section 3A</strong> of the <em>Haryana Official Languages Act, 1969, </em>arguing that their fundamental right to practice the profession of law was impacted by the same.</p>.<p>The primary prayer of the petition was to strike down the amendment as being violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Indian Constitution as it <em>"creates an unreasonable classification between Hindi and non Hindi speaking advocates". </em>The plea reads,</p>.<p><em>"It precludes the use of English which is used widely to conduct legal proceedings. This has impinged upon the right to freely practice the legal profession and earn a livelihood as guaranteed under Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution."</em> </p>.<p>Arguing that the amendment was not fit for the state, the plea states that Haryana is an industrial hub and home to various multi-national companies, where people from every strata of the society reside, the majority of whom are not fluent or conversant in Hindi.</p>.<p><em>"The amendment is with the assumption that everyone practicing law in Haryana not only know Hindi but are fluent with it. The amendment stating that imposing Hindi is for people of the state and necessary to get justice is "wholly irrational"."</em></p>.<p>Highlighting how making Hindi mandatory could be problematic for lawyers, the plea states that <em>"level of fluency and expertise needed to argue and represent a matter in Hindi is much more than a simple understanding of the language".</em></p>.<p>READ ORDER</p>
<p>While hearing a plea challenging the "mandatory" imposition of Hindi in courts of Haryana, the Supreme Court observed that there is no problem if English was allowed to be used with the court's permission <em>(Sameer Jain & Ors v. State of Haryana & anr).</em></p>.<p>Though the plea has now been ordered to be withdrawn with permission to approach the Punjab & Haryana High Court, the Bench led by Chief Justice of India <strong>SA Bobde</strong> observed that vernacular languages were used in subordinate courts even during British rule.</p>.<p>CJI Bobde observed,</p>.<p><em>"With the advent of more and more people coming to the profession with access to justice reaching out, then 80% don't know English. When British ruled India, language used in subordinate courts was vernacular. Take MP, its Hindi there too."</em></p>.<p>Counsel for the state of Haryana submitted that since it was a writ petition challenging the state legislation, the petitioners should approach the High Court.</p>.<p>On May 27, a group of five advocates practicing in courts of Delhi, Uttar Pradesh and Haryana challenged the constitutionality of the <em>Haryana Official Language (Amendment) Act, 2020,</em> which was contended to have "arbitrarily" made Hindi as the official language of courts in Haryana.</p>.<p>Lawyers <strong>Sameer Jain, Sandeep Bajaj, Angad Sandhu, Suvigya Awasthi </strong>and <strong>Anant Gupta</strong> assailed the amendment made to <strong>Section 3A</strong> of the <em>Haryana Official Languages Act, 1969, </em>arguing that their fundamental right to practice the profession of law was impacted by the same.</p>.<p>The primary prayer of the petition was to strike down the amendment as being violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Indian Constitution as it <em>"creates an unreasonable classification between Hindi and non Hindi speaking advocates". </em>The plea reads,</p>.<p><em>"It precludes the use of English which is used widely to conduct legal proceedings. This has impinged upon the right to freely practice the legal profession and earn a livelihood as guaranteed under Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution."</em> </p>.<p>Arguing that the amendment was not fit for the state, the plea states that Haryana is an industrial hub and home to various multi-national companies, where people from every strata of the society reside, the majority of whom are not fluent or conversant in Hindi.</p>.<p><em>"The amendment is with the assumption that everyone practicing law in Haryana not only know Hindi but are fluent with it. The amendment stating that imposing Hindi is for people of the state and necessary to get justice is "wholly irrational"."</em></p>.<p>Highlighting how making Hindi mandatory could be problematic for lawyers, the plea states that <em>"level of fluency and expertise needed to argue and represent a matter in Hindi is much more than a simple understanding of the language".</em></p>.<p>READ ORDER</p>
