Question Regarding Preeminence: Arvind Datar's Analysis - Is it English or Hindi that takes priority in authoritative texts?
In the realm of Indian law, the question of which text holds the authoritative status – the original Hindi or regional language version, or the English translation – has been a subject of much debate. This article delves into the various rulings and decisions made by the Supreme Court and High Courts on this matter.
The Supreme Court, in cases such as State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Singh, has established that the original text of a legislative act in Hindi or regional languages is authoritative, while the English translation is considered non-authoritative. However, conflicting decisions have arisen in High Courts, with some favouring the English text and others the regional language.
Article 348(1) requires all bills introduced in Parliament or a state legislature to be in English. Yet, under Article 348(3), the translation alone is deemed to be the authoritative text in English. This has led to a distinction being drawn between the "authoritative text" and the "authoritative version".
The Uttarakhand High Court has held that in state legislatures, the regional language will prevail if a bill is introduced in the official language of the state. Conversely, the Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan High Courts have stated that in cases of doubt or ambiguity, the translated English version under Article 348(3) is the authoritative version.
Senior Advocate Arvind Datar argues that the expression "authoritative text" in the Constitution should not be interpreted as "authoritative version". According to Datar, bills in both English and Hindi/regional languages, following the procedure under Article 348(1) and 348(3), are "authoritative texts"; there is no "authoritative version".
In cases of doubt or ambiguity, both the authorised English text and the Hindi text can be referred to and compared. If there is an irreconcilable conflict between two versions of a bill, it is the responsibility of the High Courts or Supreme Court to call for records, require an explanation, and decide which authoritative text is correct.
The Supreme Court held in Nityanand Sharma v. State of Bihar (1996) that for Acts of Parliament, the English version is the authoritative text. However, in a land acquisition case, a High Court quashed a notification due to the Hindi version being vague and ineffective, despite the English version being considered the authoritative text.
The legal notes emphasise the need for proper procedure in correcting errors in bills, even if they are minor, to avoid potential legal challenges. For instance, the Bombay High Court found that a printing error in the English version of a Finance Bill was corrected, even though the prescribed procedure was not followed.
Arvind Datar's legal notes discuss the interpretation of bills and the role of the courts in resolving conflicts and ambiguities. In the Allahabad High Court, it was held that if there is doubt or ambiguity in the authorised English text, the corresponding Hindi text can be referred to.
In conclusion, the debate over the authoritative text in Indian legislation is complex and multifaceted. While the English translation is considered the authoritative text for Acts of Parliament, the original Hindi or regional language versions may hold precedence in state legislatures. The courts play a crucial role in resolving any conflicts or ambiguities that arise between the two versions.
Read also:
- Lu Shiow-yen's Challenging Position as Chair of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Under Scrutiny in Donovan's Analysis
- Approval Granted for Significant Infrastructure Initiatives in Maharashtra
- Who is Palestine Action, the organization tied to numerous arrests within the UK?
- "Trump Criticizes EU's $3.5 billion fine on Google as Unjust, Threatens Additional Tariffs"
