The Lift Line

“Perhaps, the way forward is not to replace one language with another, but to make the work of the court accessible in more Indian languages.” (Sincy Wilson, The Hindu)

Why This Editorial Matters for Your Exam

This op-ed by Sincy Wilson, Assistant Professor of Law at Vels University (VISTAS), published in The Hindu on 13 October 2026, asks a question the Supreme Court declined to answer by court order: who decides the language in which India’s higher courts work? It reads Article 348 of the Constitution and Section 7 of the Official Languages Act, 1963, brings in the separation of powers, and ends with a case for translation through the Supreme Court’s SUVAS tool rather than replacing English.

For the wider language debate, see our editorials on the three-language policy in schools and on Hindi’s global footprint.

GS Paper 2: Indian Constitution (Part XVII, Official Language; Article 348); structure and functioning of the judiciary; separation of powers; access to justice and technology in courts.

In the news: in an op-ed in The Hindu on 13 October 2026, Sincy Wilson argues that English remains the language of proceedings in the Supreme Court and the High Courts until Parliament provides otherwise by law, and that wider translation, not replacement, is the way forward.

Background and Context

The PIL the Supreme Court dismissed

The column’s background is a public interest litigation (PIL) that the Supreme Court dismissed in September 2026. The record, from Bar & Bench, The Tribune and Deccan Herald:

Point What the record shows
Date of the order 25 September 2026
Petitioner Brahmeshwar Nath Mishra
Relief sought A direction to the Centre to constitute a commission to recommend the use of Hindi as the official language of the Supreme Court
Bench Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana
The CJI “These things do not happen through court orders. They happen as part of reforms, slowly and in a phased manner. Such things we are doing”
The CJI, on access “We are now giving a brief description of all the reports in Hindi. We will start with other regional languages”
Justice Mohana “You are asking for a constitutional amendment. How can a court do that?”
Outcome Dismissed: the Court “was not inclined to entertain the PIL”

Read the order for what it did and did not do. The Court did not rule against Hindi. It declined to direct a commission, observing, in Deccan Herald’s words, that “language-related reforms are already under administrative consideration and cannot be enforced through judicial orders”. The Tribune reports the bench’s view that the relief sought “would effectively require a constitutional amendment”.

What Article 348 says

Article 348 sits in Part XVII of the Constitution, titled “Official Language”.

Clause What it provides
348(1)(a) “until Parliament by law otherwise provides”, all proceedings in the Supreme Court and in every High Court shall be in the English language
348(1)(b) The authoritative texts of Bills, Acts, Ordinances, and orders, rules, regulations and bye-laws shall also be in English
348(2) The Governor of a State, “with the previous consent of the President”, may authorise Hindi or any other language used for any official purposes of the State “in proceedings in the High Court having its principal seat in that State”
Proviso to 348(2) “nothing in this clause shall apply to any judgment, decree or order passed or made by such High Court”
348(3) Where a State legislature uses another language for its Bills, Acts and similar texts, an English translation published under the Governor’s authority is the authoritative text

Two points follow from the text. Article 348(2) is a route for High Courts only; Bar & Bench notes that “no such exception has been carved out for the Supreme Court”. And the proviso keeps judgments, decrees and orders out of that route.

Section 7 of the Official Languages Act, 1963

Section 7, headed “Optional use of Hindi or other Official language in judgements etc. of High Courts”, fills the gap the proviso leaves. The Governor, with the previous consent of the President, may authorise Hindi or the State’s official language, “in addition to the English language, for the purposes of any judgement, decree or order passed or made by the High Court for that State”. Any such judgment “shall be accompanied by a translation of the same in the English language issued under the authority of the High Court”.

The rules, in one line: Article 348(2) covers proceedings in a High Court; Section 7 covers its judgments, decrees and orders, with an English translation; neither covers the Supreme Court.

The author names four High Courts that use Hindi: Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and Bihar. The column credits Section 7 with enabling Hindi “in proceedings” there; on the text above, proceedings come under Article 348(2), and judgments under Section 7.

Madhu Limaye v. Ved Murti (1970)

The author draws on Madhu Limaye v. Ved Murti, (1970) 3 SCC 738, a habeas corpus case before a seven-judge bench. As LiveLaw recounts it, an intervener, Raj Narain, insisted on arguing in Hindi; the court heard him for some time, then said it could not follow him, and offered him options such as letting his counsel present his case or giving written arguments in English. The court reminded him that Article 348 makes English the language of the Supreme Court, and when he would not agree, his intervention was cancelled.

SUVAS: how many languages?

SUVAS (Supreme Court Vidhik Anuvaad Software) is the Supreme Court’s AI-driven translation tool. The column says it translates judgments into 16 languages. PIB lists 18: in a release of February 2026, it said AI tools built with the National Informatics Centre (NIC) “are translating Supreme Court judgments into 18 Indian languages”. The figure of 16 matches an older count: a PIB release of August 2024 recorded 36,271 judgments translated into Hindi and 17,142 into “other 16 regional languages”, available on the e-SCR portal.

The Analysis

1. Two questions, not one. The author starts from a distinction the bench appeared to draw: making the courts’ work accessible in Indian languages is one thing; changing the language regime of the judiciary is another. The first is under way through administrative steps. The second raises the question the column is about: “who has the authority to decide the language in which courts conduct their proceedings?”

2. The text answers the first half. Under Article 348(1)(a), English is the language of proceedings in the Supreme Court and every High Court “until Parliament by law otherwise provides”. The author adds that “Parliament has not enacted any law under this provision to replace English”. The State-level routes, Article 348(2) for proceedings and Section 7 for judgments, both need the President’s previous consent, and both stop at the High Courts.

3. Separation of powers answers the second half. The author’s argument: “Generally, the judiciary cannot issue a writ of mandamus compelling Parliament to enact a particular law, amend the Constitution or establish a commission for that purpose.” Such matters, the column says, “fall within the Parliament’s legislative domain”. The bench said much the same in its own words: these things “do not happen through court orders”.

4. Amendment or ordinary law? Two readings stand side by side. Justice Mohana told the petitioner, “You are asking for a constitutional amendment”, and The Tribune reports the bench’s view that the relief would “effectively require a constitutional amendment”. Article 348(1), as the author also reads it, speaks of Parliament providing otherwise “by law”. An aspirant should know both positions: the bench’s remark on the relief sought, and the words of the Article. The column does not reconcile them, and neither does the order as reported.

5. One language for the bench, many for the public. The author’s second dilemma is whether “a court” must “speak in one language to speak to a nation of different tongues”. Madhu Limaye shows the practical side: a bench drawn from across the country has to follow the arguments before it. The author’s answer is translation: “the way forward is not to replace one language with another, but to make the work of the court accessible in more Indian languages”, through SUVAS and through the brief descriptions of reports that the CJI said would move from Hindi to other regional languages.

Data and Institutions Vault

Prelims-grade facts:

  • Article 348(1)(a): English for all proceedings in the Supreme Court and every High Court, “until Parliament by law otherwise provides”.
  • Article 348(1)(b): authoritative texts of Bills, Acts, Ordinances, and orders, rules, regulations and bye-laws in English.
  • Article 348(2): a Governor, with the President’s previous consent, may authorise Hindi or a State official language in High Court proceedings.
  • Proviso to Article 348(2): does not apply to any judgment, decree or order of that High Court.
  • Official Languages Act, 1963, Section 7: High Court judgments, decrees and orders may be in Hindi or the State’s official language, in addition to English.
  • Section 7 conditions: the President’s previous consent, and an English translation issued under the High Court’s authority.
  • Part XVII of the Constitution is titled “Official Language”.
  • SUVAS: Supreme Court Vidhik Anuvaad Software, the Supreme Court’s AI-driven translation tool, built with NIC.
  • SUVAS reach: 18 Indian languages (PIB, February 2026); translated judgments are on the e-SCR portal.
  • Madhu Limaye v. Ved Murti, (1970) 3 SCC 738: seven-judge bench; an intervener who insisted on arguing in Hindi had his intervention cancelled.
  • The PIL (2026): bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana; dismissed.

⚠️ Watch the trap:

  • Article 348(2) does not cover the Supreme Court; it applies only to a High Court with its principal seat in the State.
  • Article 348(2) covers proceedings, not judgments; High Court judgments in Hindi or a State language come under Section 7 of the OLA, 1963.
  • The Supreme Court did not “reject Hindi”; it dismissed a PIL that sought a commission.
  • SUVAS: PIB lists 18 Indian languages; “16” was the count of regional languages other than Hindi in August 2024.

The Debate

For a change in the language of the higher courts For English with wider translation
Litigants who do not read English cannot follow the hearing of their own case A bench drawn from many States needs one working language to follow arguments, as Madhu Limaye showed
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the plea was “firmly grounded in constitutional provisions” Article 348(1)(a) fixes English until Parliament acts; the author says a court generally cannot compel Parliament to legislate
Article 348(2) and Section 7 show that the Constitution already allows Indian languages in the High Courts Those routes stop at the High Courts and keep an English text, so precedent stays readable across the country
Translation after judgment does not help during the hearing Translation through SUVAS and summaries in regional languages reach more people now, without waiting for a law

How to Think About This

Ask three questions in order. What does the text say? Article 348 fixes English for the higher courts, with routes for Indian languages in the High Courts under Article 348(2) and Section 7. Who can change it? Parliament, and not a court by order; on the route, keep the bench’s “constitutional amendment” remark and the Article’s “by law” side by side. What serves the litigant now? Translation of judgments and summaries, which the Court can do without any change in the law.

A good Mains answer treats language as part of access to justice, not as a contest between languages. It keeps a common working language for the bench and widens the languages in which people can read what the court decides.

Diagram-in-Words

Argument map

Who decides the language of India’s courts

Covers the rule, its exceptions, the dismissed PIL, two readings and the author’s way forward.

The rule: Article 348(1)(a) English for all proceedings in the Supreme Court and every High Court, "until Parliament by law otherwise provides" Article 348(2) Governor, with the President’s previous consent: Hindi or a State language in High Court proceedings Proviso not for any judgment, decree or order of that High Court OLA 1963, Section 7 judgments in Hindi or the State language, with an English translation the exceptions The plea a commission to recommend Hindi as the Supreme Court’s official language The bench reforms come "slowly and in a phased manner", not through court orders Justice Mohana "You are asking for a constitutional amendment" the dismissed PIL The bench the relief needs a constitutional amendment The text of Article 348(1) English applies "until Parliament by law otherwise provides" two readings The author’s way forward: translate, do not replace SUVAS; PIB lists 18 Indian languages; brief descriptions of reports in Hindi first
The column’s chain: the text fixes English, only Parliament can change it, and courts can widen access through translation in the meantime.

Takeaway Box

  • The rule: Article 348(1)(a) keeps English for all proceedings in the Supreme Court and every High Court until Parliament by law otherwise provides.
  • The routes: Article 348(2) for High Court proceedings, and Section 7 of the Official Languages Act, 1963 for High Court judgments with an English translation; both need the President’s previous consent, and neither covers the Supreme Court.
  • The order: the Supreme Court dismissed a PIL seeking a commission on Hindi, saying such reforms come through administration, in phases.
  • The open point: the bench spoke of a constitutional amendment; Article 348(1) speaks of Parliament acting by law.
  • The way forward: translate, do not replace, through SUVAS (18 Indian languages, as PIB lists them) and summaries in regional languages.

Revision Flowchart

Revision flowchart

A Common Language for Justice: Article 348 and Courts

Covers the terms, Prelims pointers and traps, Mains pointers, the way forward and a practice question.

A common language for justice: English stays until Parliament acts; translation widens access Article 348, Official Languages Act, 1963, SUVAS Sincy Wilson, The Hindu, 13 October 2026 (GS2) Know the terms Article 348 language of the Supreme Court, the High Courts, and Bills and Acts; in Part XVII, Official Language SUVAS Supreme Court Vidhik Anuvaad Software, an AI-driven translation tool, built with NIC Writ of mandamus the author: courts generally cannot issue one compelling Parliament to enact a law Prelims pointers Article 348(1)(a) English "until Parliament by law otherwise provides" Article 348(2) High Court proceedings only; proviso keeps judgments, decrees and orders out OLA 1963, Section 7 High Court judgments in Hindi or the State language, with an English translation Mains pointers Separation of powers the bench: such reforms "do not happen through court orders" Amendment or law? the bench says amendment; Article 348(1) speaks of Parliament acting by law A common working language Madhu Limaye (1970): the bench could not follow an intervener in Hindi; his intervention was cancelled Way forward Translate judgments SUVAS: 18 Indian languages, as PIB lists them Summaries in Hindi first then other regional languages, as the CJI described Leave the choice to Parliament the author’s view: the legislative domain decides PRELIMS TRAPS left: the tempting wrong line · right: the fact ✗ A Governor can authorise Hindi in the Supreme Court under Article 348(2). ✓ Article 348(2) covers only a High Court with its principal seat in that State. ✗ Article 348(2) lets a High Court deliver judgments in Hindi. ✓ Its proviso excludes judgments; Section 7 of the OLA, 1963 allows them with an English translation. ✗ The Supreme Court ruled against Hindi. ✓ It dismissed a PIL seeking a commission; it said reforms proceed administratively. QUICK RECALL cover the right column, then check Which Article fixes the language of the Supreme Court? Article 348(1)(a) Whose consent does a Governor need under Article 348(2)? The President’s (previous consent) Which section of the OLA, 1963 covers High Court judgments? Section 7 What does SUVAS stand for? Supreme Court Vidhik Anuvaad Software Which Part of the Constitution is titled Official Language? Part XVII MAINS KEYWORDS Access to justice Separation of powers Linguistic diversity Legislative domain Judicial translation Constitutional text Phased reform MAINS PRACTICE GS2 · 250 words Article 348 makes English the language of proceedings in the Supreme Court and the High Courts until Parliament provides otherwise by law. Examine the constitutional and practical issues in changing the language of the higher judiciary, and suggest how access to justice in Indian languages can be widened.
Revision flowchart: terms, Prelims facts and traps, Mains pointers. Cover the answers and test yourself.

Sources: The Hindu, op-ed, “A common language for justice”; Bar & Bench, Supreme Court dismisses PIL for Hindi; The Tribune, SC junks PIL on Hindi; Deccan Herald, Supreme Court rejects PIL on Hindi; Article 348 (constitutionofindia.net); Official Languages Act, 1963 (Government of Assam copy); PIB, AI and access to justice (2026); PIB, translation of Supreme Court judgments (2024); LiveLaw, English, the language of the Supreme Court.

Source: A Common Language for Justice: Article 348 and Courts — Ujiyari.com | Free UPSC & State PCS Editorial Analysis