14.5
MAOHU LIMA YE AND ANR.
v. VED MURTI & ORS.
September 10, 1970
[M. HIDAYATULLAH, C.J., J. M. SHELAT, G. K. MITTER, C. A. VAIDIALINGAM, A.
V. N.
BHARGAVA, RAY AND
I. D. DuA, JJ.] Supreme Court-Language of court is Eng/lsh-I'ntervener seeking
O permission to argue in Hindi-Such permis~ion, could not be exterttkd when counsel on both sides and several members of Bench could not follow argumelt/s in Hindi-Alternatives .mggested by court not accepted by intervener-Intervention must be cancelled, R was allowed to intervene in a petition 'for a writ of liabeas corpu.< under Art. 32 of the Constitution. He was a\lowed, at his request, to address the court in Hindi but. counsel on both sides as well aa several members of the Bench were unable to follow his argument. He was asked by the court to address the court in English, or to allow his counsel to present his case, or to give written arguments in English. He refused to accept any of these suggestions. . HELD · In the circumstances it was futile to allow the intervener to continue hi; arguments in Hin\li. The language of the court being English and the intervener not being agreeable to any of the suggestions made to him, the "only alternative for the court was to cancel his intervention. ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition No. 307 of 1970.
Petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India for a writ in the nature of habeas corpus. Petitioner No. 1 appeared in person. K. Rajendra Chaudhuri and Pratap Singh, for petitioner No. 2. C. D. Daphtary, L. M. Singhvi and 0. P. Rana, for the respondents.
Niren De, /fttorney-General, R. H. Dhebar, H. R. Khanna, S. P. Nayar and R. N. Sachthey, for Attorney-Gene1a! and Ul!l!ion of India. S. C. Agarwal, D. P. Singh and Raj Narain (in person), for the intervener.
ORDER Mr. Raj Narain yesterday insisted on arguing in Hindi. He was heard for sometime with a view to see whether we could f~llow him, si~~ly because this is a habeas petition involving the liberty of the c1tmm. Because of the importance of the case we heard him for sometime, but the Attorney-General, Mr. Daphtary who is opposing him and some of the members ot. the Bench could n?t unde!Jitand the :u~ents made in Hindi yesterday. In these circumstances, it is futtle to permit Mr. Raj Narain to continue his
[1971 J 2 s.c.R.' argumemlts in Hindi. He has a counsel Mr. D. P. Singh already in attendance and helping him. We suggested the following three alternatives, (a) that he may argue in English; or (b) he may ·allow his counsel to preSQll( his case; or ( c) he may give his written arguments in English.
B:
ws
The language of Court is English (see Art. 348 of the Constitution). If Mr. Raj Narain is not agreeable to these sugges. tions, and we understand, he is not, the only alternative for us is to ca.nee! his intervention. We order accordingly.
G.C.
c