Procedure to be followed by court if there is conflict between Hindi and English version of law

"Under Article 345, the Legislature of a State may adopt any one or more of the languages in use in the State or Hindi as the language or languages to be used for all or any of the official purpose of the State. This power is subject to Articles 346 and Article 347 of the Constitution of India. It is, apparently, in terms of Article 345 that the Uttar Pradesh Legislature has passed the two laws, which we have adverted to namely, Uttar Pradesh Language (Bills and Acts) Act, 1950 and Uttar Pradesh Official Language Act, 1951. By virtue of these laws, undoubtedly, the State has adopted Hindi as the language for the purpose of enacting laws be they plenary or subordinate legislation, but it is hedged in with the limitation contained in Article 348(3) of the Constitution. Under Article 348(3), it becomes the duty to publish the translation of the law, which is made in the official language other than English. The publication of the translation is to be done under the authority of the Governor of the State in the official gazette of the State. Sub Article (3) of Article 348 further declares unambiguously that it shall be deemed to be the authoritative text of the English language under Article 348. It must be remembered that Article 348(1) provides that the authoritative texts of all Bills and Acts, inter alia, are to be in English language. It is to provide for the contingency where a State adopts any other language as its official language that the founding fathers provided for a translation to be made of the law into English, which is made by the Legislature in a language other than English. This English version is, undoubtedly, to be treated as the authoritative text within the meaning of Sub Article 1 of Article 348 of the Constitution of India."

21. Having thus referred to the various provisions of law, we must consider the effect of any ambiguity, which may exist between the two versions, namely, (i) English language and (ii) any other language, which may be the official language of the State concerned. There can be broadly two situations to our mind. As in the case of Nityanand Sharma (supra) and Prabhat Kumar Sharma (supra), the original version of a law may be published in the English language. It may be followed by the Hindi version of the same. The second possibility is where the law may be made in the official language of the State concerned, as in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh where Hindi is the official language. A law may be made in Hindi language; it must be followed by an English translation within the meaning of Article 348(3), which is to be treated as authoritative text under Article 348(1). In a case where a law is made in English language and a confusion arises on account of the translation found in the Hindi version, quite clearly, dominance would be accorded to the English version. When a law is made, however, in the official language, other than English language as say the Hindi language as in the facts of this case and a discrepancy occurs when the translation takes place, it can give rise to two broad situations again. The first situation would be on account of the inadequacy or ineptitude of the translator, a doubt or ambiguity may be created by virtue of the translation made under Article 348(3) of the Constitution. While, it is true that Article 348(1) declares that the translation published under Article 348(3) will be the authoritative text within the meaning of Article 348(1), as the duty of the Court is to give effect to the intention of the Legislature, every effort must be made to reconcile the differences. An attempt must be made to find out the intention of the law-giver. Both the Hindi version and the English version can be looked into and the Court would be acting within its powers in adopting the version, which best accords with the intention of the Legislature, applying various Rules of interpretation and in particular, the purpose Rule.

22. The second category of cases is those cases, where there is a conflict between the two versions, namely, the Hindi and the English. If there is a conflict between the Hindi version and the English version, it is our view that it is the translation published under Article 348(3), of the law, in English, which would prevail. This view of ours is arrived at by following what has been laid down by not only the Hon'ble Apex Court in Park Leather Industry's case (supra) but also by the seven Judges Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Mata Badal Pandey's case (supra).

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Special Appeal No. 593 of 2017

Decided On: 18.09.2017

Shahjahan Baigam Vs.  District Magistrate Udham Singh Nagar and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

K.M. Joseph, C.J. and Alok Singh, J.

Citation: AIR 2017 Uttar 200

Print Page

Whether confession recorded by court in Hindi language of pakistani National is valid?

With these principles in mind, we now turn to the requirements

of Rule 15(1) of TADA Rules and the facts in the matter. Rule 15(1)

stipulates that the confession “shall invariably be recorded in the

language in which such confession is made and if that is not

practicable, in the language used by such police officer for official

purposes or in the language of the Designated Court ……”. The

expression “invariably” itself suggests that the requirement under the

Rule is discretionary and not mandatory. The record in the present

matter is very clear that the confessing accused Ghulam Nabi was

produced before PW1 S.K. Bhatnagar on 16.12.1995, was given

statutory warning and time to reflect. Everything was explained to

him and only thereafter his thumb impression was taken. On the next

occasion when the confessing accused was again produced before the

witness, soon after the recording of the confession it was again

explained to him, read over and only thereafter the thumb impression

was taken. At no stage during the recording on these two occasions,

nor at the stage when the witness was in the box, there is anything on

record, or even a suggestion that the confessing accused did not

understand or was not made to understand the contents of the

confession. The contents of the confession also disclose that many of

the assertions are personal to the confessing accused which could only

be gathered after due conversation with the Recording Officer.

 The language used as a means of communication between the

confessing accused and the recording officer being Hindi or

Hindustani, such recording of confession in Hindi language is

completely in conformity with the requirement of the Rule. The

conclusion drawn by the trial court that Ghulam Nabi being Pakistani

national his language must be Urdu and therefore the recording of the

confession in a language other than Urdu, must be held to be not in

conformity, is wrong. Nothing has been placed on record that the

confessing accused did not understand the line of questioning or that

he was not made to understand the contents of the confession after the

recording was complete. In our view the assessment made by the trial

court in this behalf is completely incorrect and against the record.

Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1743/2009

State of J&K 

V

Wasim Ahmed Malik @ Hamid and another.

Citation; (2015)8 SCC465

Print Page

Whether information under RTI is to be supplied in Hindi even though information is in English?

This aspect needs clarification. It is true that the
proceedings in a High Court are in English language.
Therefore by and large “records” are in English. Yet is the
public information officer also bound to supply the “record”
in “Hindi”, even when it is specifically requisitioned though
originally the records are in English. The answer to this
would be in negative. This is not the intent or the mandate of
the Act. This is for two reasons. Firstly, the definition of
“right to information” itself states that a citizen has access to
information which is “held” by or under the control of any
public authority. Obviously since the “information” in the
form of a record is “held” by the public authority in English,
it has to be supplied in that language. Secondly, even Section
4 (4) of the Act, which has been referred above, states that
the obligation of the Public Authority is to “disseminate” 16
“information” in local language but with considerations of
“local language” as well as “cost effectiveness” alongwith
other consideration. The cost of translation of all record in
“Hindi” would be immense and would be practically not
possible. As such the records can only be given as they exist.
The public authority i.e. High Court in the present case, is
not obliged to translate records into Hindi, and furnish them
even when requisition is so made.”
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
SPECIAL APPEAL NO. 62 of 2010
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
V
Uttarakhand State Information Commission and others.

Dated : 26th May, 2015
Coram : Hon’ble K.M. Joseph, C.J.
 Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J.

Citation;AIR 2015Uttarakhand 106

Print Page