Let Indian languages rule the roost at courts

In a path-breaking move, the Supreme Court of India has decided to make available its judgements in seven regional languages, to start with.

The languages are, Telugu, Hindi, Assamese, Marathi, Kannada, Oriya and Tamil. The translations are likely to be made available by the end of this month.

In November 2018, Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, after assuming the office, had said he wanted people to be able to read the top court's verdicts in their mother tongue.

Hopefully, other translations in regional languages too, will follow. The same facility should be extended to the judgements and orders passed by the High Courts and lower courts also.

In fact, in certain States, the court language is the State's official language and the whole court proceedings are conducted in the regional language concerned only. No difficulties are expressed by any stakeholder.

However, the problem comes when a matter is carried in appeal or revision to the High Court where the court language is only English. The High Courts insist that the entire record of the lower court should be translated in English and submitted before them for consideration.

Therefore, there is an urgent need to do away with the colonial mindset of being slave to English and introduce Hindi and other regional languages as the court languages right from the lowest court to the apex court.

The Supreme Court being the supreme in judiciary, there is no question of carrying its judgement to any English-speaking superior court. Hence, the Constitution should be suitably amended to replace English with Hindi and/or other regional languages as the court languages.

This alone would break the jinx and make the people understand the nitty-gritty of court-proceedings. Of course, a few English bred lawyers will have to burn their midnight oil to 'learn' an Indian language or two in a bid to survive in the profession !

Defence personnel cannot quit at will: SC

" A person who has been enrolled as a member of the Air Force does not have an unqualified right to depart from service at his or her will during the term of engagement.

Such a construction, as urged on behalf of the appellant, will seriously impinge upon manning levels and operational preparedness of the armed forces. With the rapid advancement of technology particularly in its application to military operations, there has been a reconfiguration of human and technological requirements of a fighting force.

The interests of the service are of paramount importance," observing this a bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justices D Y Chandrachud and Justice Hemant Gupta rejected the plea of the IAF personnel who contended that the Constitution has given him a fundamental right to practise any profession and his right cannot be infringed upon by the Air Force rules.

The court passed the order on an appeal filed by Amit Kumar Roy challenging IAF decision not to issue "No Objection Certificate" to him to enable him to join as probationary officer in a bank.

He had joined the Air Force in 2004 and applied for the bank job in 2010 and appeared for written test and interview without taking the mandatory permission from IAF. The court also imposed a fine of Rs 3 lakh on him.

Parliament okays amendment to MCI Act

Rajya Sabha on July 4 passed by a voice vote The Indian Medical Council (Amendment ) Bill, 2019. Earlier, on June 2, the Lok Sabha had passed the said Bill. Now, it will replace an Ordinance promulgated on February 21.

The Bill superseded Medical Council of India for two years which allegedly had become a den of corruption. During these two years the affairs relating to medical field will be managed by a Board of Governors consisting of reputed doctors.

SC restores trial court verdict in Pandya murder case

In a sensational murder case of Haren Pandya, the Home Minister of Gujarat in 2003 the Supreme Court has upheld the trail court's verdict of conviction of all 12 accused and sentence of life imprisonment to nine of them by overturning the Gujarat High Court judgement that had acquitted all the accused.

After the High Court's judgement, CBI had preferred appeal in the apex court. During the pendency of appeal a PIL was filed by an NGO called, Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL), for a fresh probe into the matter.

The apex court expressed its displeasure over filing of the PIL at a time when the CBI's appeal was still pending before it and imposed a fine of Rs 50,000 on the said NGO.

This is a unique case which once again proves the adage: Justice delayed, but not denied.

HC has limited powers in govt policy matters

The Telangana High Court while dealing with a PIL filed by the Telangana Jana Samithi (TJS), questioning the government's decision to construct the legislature complex by demolishing 150-year-old building at Errum Manzil in Hyderabad, posed a question of maintainability to the counsel for the petitioner.

Speaking for the bench, Chief Justice Raghavendra Singh Chauhan told the Counsel: "We will interfere only if you are able to show us that the State government's decision in this regard is unreasonable and arbitrary."

The court, however, ordered notices to the respondents and posted the matter to July 8 along with other similar pleas filed opposing the proposed demolition of the building.

No re-election through ballot papers: SC

The apex court has turned out the plea seeking re-election to Lok Sabha by using the old method of ballot papers alleging the use of electronic voting machines (EVMs) as unconstitutional. M L Sharma, the petitioner in PIL, had questioned provisions under Section 61A of the Representation of the People Act.

The bench headed by Justice Rohinton Nariman while expressing its incredulity of the prayers, asked the petitioner: "What do you want us to do? Set aside the whole general election?" and proceeded to reject the plea.

Mere inconvenience no ground for transfer of case: HC

Mere inconvenience of wife to attend the court is not a ground to transfer a matrimonial suit to another court.

The Calcutta High Court while dismissing the petition for transfer of a case from one court to another on the ground of inconvenience to the petitioner in Dipika Agarwal @ Dipika Khaitan Vs Rishi Agarwal (C.O No. 622 of 2019 with C.O No.1094 of 2019), held as follows : "Simply because the wife feels inconvenient to attend Court at Alipore is no ground for withdrawal of matrimonial suit from the court at Alipore and to transfer it in the district of Birbhum... the ground of inconvenience pleaded by the petitioner/wife has to be weighed with other attending circumstances. "

ICJ to pronounce verdict on Jadhav on July 17

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) will pronounce the verdict in Kulbhashan Jadhav's case on July 17.

Jadhav, a former Navyman of India was charged, tried and convicted of the charges of espionage by Pakistan and awarded death penalty. India took up the matter with the ICJ and hearing has been concluded.