Overview
A PIL was filed on 25 September 2026 seeking a commission to recommend Hindi as the official language of the Supreme Court. The petition argued that the move was backed by constitutional provisions.
Key Developments
- The bench comprising CJI Surya Kant, Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana observed that language reforms are already being implemented through administrative steps.
- Justice V. Mohana stated that any change requiring the Supreme Court to adopt Hindi would need a constitutional amendment.
- The court is now providing brief Hindi summaries of its reports and plans to extend this to other regional languages.
Important Constitutional Provisions
1. Article 348(1)(a) currently mandates English for all proceedings. Parliament has not enacted a law to replace it.
2. Article 348(2) enables limited use of Hindi in High Courts.
3. Section 7 of the Official Languages Act, 1963 has been used by Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and Bihar.
Separation of Powers and Legislative Competence
The judiciary cannot compel Parliament to pass a law or amend the Constitution. Such authority rests with the legislature, reflecting the doctrine of separation of powers. Therefore, a court‑directed commission to replace English with Hindi would overstep judicial limits.
Exam Relevance
- Understanding Article 348 is essential for questions on official language policy.
- Knowledge of the Official Languages Act helps answer queries on State‑level language use in courts.
- The case illustrates the practical application of the separation of powers doctrine.
- Awareness of the Supreme Court’s AI‑driven translation tool, SUVAS highlights technology’s role in governance.
Way Forward
Rather than replacing English, the court can continue expanding multilingual summaries and AI translations. This approach respects linguistic diversity, fulfills the constitutional mandate of English for proceedings, and improves public accessibility. A legislative amendment could later formalise Hindi or other languages for Supreme Court use, but that would require parliamentary action, not judicial direction.