The Supreme Court of India, in its ruling on November 4, 2024, dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed in Kishan Chand Jain vs. Union of India & Anr., W.P.(C) No. 701/2024, which sought to mandate that hearings in the Apex Court be conducted exclusively in Hindi. The PIL challenged the validity of Article 348(1) of the Constitution, which designates English as the language for Supreme Court proceedings. This article examines the Court's decision, the constitutional and practical considerations behind maintaining English as the language of the higher judiciary, and the potential implications of introducing Hindi or regional languages into Supreme Court proceedings.

Introduction:
Language has long been a contentious subject in India's diverse social and legal fabric. India's linguistic plurality is enshrined in the Constitution, which recognizes 22 official languages. However, English has traditionally served as a bridge language, particularly in the judiciary, for its perceived neutrality and practicality in a multilingual nation. Article 348(1) of the Constitution prescribes English as the language of the Supreme Court and High Courts. This provision has been the focal point of numerous debates, with some advocating for the adoption of Hindi in higher courts to better reflect the national ethos. The PIL in Kishan Chand Jain vs. Union of India & Anr. is the latest attempt to challenge Article 348(1), which the Supreme Court has unequivocally dismissed.

The Petition in Brief:
The petitioner, Mr. Kishan Chand Jain, argued that hearings in the Supreme Court should be conducted in Hindi, positing that Hindi, as the most widely spoken language in India, should take precedence over English. He contended that English in the judiciary creates an inherent barrier, limiting accessibility for Hindi-speaking litigants. The PIL argued that Article 348(1) perpetuates colonial hangover and undermines India's national identity. In addition, the petition sought a judicial mandate to replace English with Hindi as the medium of argument and judgment delivery in the Supreme Court.

Article 348(1) of the Constitution:

Article 348(1) mandates that English be the language of the Supreme Court and High Courts unless the Parliament provides otherwise. The rationale behind this provision has its roots in India's colonial history and the pragmatic approach taken by the framers of the Constitution. Given India's linguistic diversity, English was retained in the judiciary to facilitate a uniform legal process across states and to ensure that judgments and legal arguments are comprehensible to practitioners and litigants from various linguistic backgrounds.

Court's Observations and Rationale:
The Supreme Court bench, while hearing the case, expressed serious reservations about the petitioner's demand. The bench underscored that the Supreme Court serves litigants from all corners of the country, each with distinct linguistic and cultural identities. The Court observed:
"Why only Hindi? We have appeals and SLPs (Special Leave Petitions) which come to this court from all states. Should we now be hearing parties in every language recognised by the Constitution? How does this work?"

This statement captures the inherent complexity of the petitioner's demand. While Hindi may be the most widely spoken language in India, the Court recognized that India's multilingual landscape cannot accommodate all regional languages at the Supreme Court level without creating significant logistical challenges. The use of English, therefore, serves as a practical necessity, not a preference, to maintain procedural consistency and ease of comprehension in a highly diverse society.

Practical Challenges and Implications of Introducing Hindi in Supreme Court Proceedings:

• Linguistic Diversity and Representation: Adopting Hindi exclusively in the Supreme Court would marginalize speakers of other languages, many of whom may not be proficient in Hindi. This raises questions about equal access to justice, as litigants and advocates from non-Hindi-speaking states could be disadvantaged.
   
• Logistical and Translational Burden: Implementing a multilingual approach would require significant infrastructural changes, including interpreters and translation services, which could delay proceedings and increase the administrative burden on the judiciary.
   
• Precedent and Consistency: The Indian judicial system is heavily precedent-based, relying on previous judgments as guiding principles. A shift to Hindi could create challenges in interpreting legal precedents, as judgments would need to be accurately translated and understood in multiple languages to maintain consistency across jurisdictions.
   
• Judicial Impartiality and Neutrality: English has often been viewed as a neutral language, detached from regional or ethnic biases. Its use in the judiciary thus helps ensure impartiality, preventing any perception of linguistic favoritism or marginalization.

Constitutional Interpretation and the Vision of the Framers:
The framers of the Constitution recognized the unique role of English in fostering unity and ensuring comprehensibility across linguistic lines. The decision to retain English for higher judiciary proceedings was not merely a temporary measure but a carefully considered solution to India's linguistic complexities. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, Chairman of the Drafting Committee, emphasized that English in the judiciary was necessary to facilitate a common legal language across states and foster coherence in judicial interpretation.

Legal Precedents Upholding English in the Judiciary:
The judiciary has consistently upheld Article 348(1) as constitutional. In M.L. Bhargava v. University of Rajasthan, the Supreme Court rejected a similar plea to substitute English with Hindi in legal education and examinations, reasoning that legal studies and proceedings require a standardized medium for consistent application of laws and legal principles. Furthermore, in Gujarat High Court Advocates' Association v. Union of India, the Court emphasized that while regional languages hold cultural importance, English ensures a cohesive and transparent legal system that upholds the spirit of justice in a multilingual society.

Constitutional Values of Linguistic Inclusively and Accessibility:
The petitioner's argument for Hindi draws on Article 351, which encourages the development of Hindi as a link language. However, this does not imply the compulsory adoption of Hindi across all institutional functions. The judiciary, as a neutral arbiter, requires linguistic inclusivity to ensure that justice remains accessible across linguistic divides. The Supreme Court's stance reflects a nuanced understanding that while Hindi is significant, English serves as a pragmatic medium for nationwide judicial communication.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court's dismissal of Kishan Chand Jain v. Union of India & Anr. underscores the judiciary's commitment to maintaining English as a unifying legal language amidst India's linguistic diversity. The Court's reasoning highlights that accessibility in the judiciary is not synonymous with the adoption of any single language; rather, it is about ensuring that the judiciary remains efficient, impartial, and comprehensible to all. Article 348(1) is not an imposition of a colonial language but a calculated choice to preserve judicial uniformity. While the demand for Hindi in courts continues to resonate among some factions, the Supreme Court's ruling in this case reaffirms that linguistic unity does not equate to uniformity. This decision thus reflects the vision of the Constitution's framers to uphold both linguistic inclusivity and judicial accessibility in a pluralistic society.