Reaffirmation that Party-in-Person Submissions in Gujarat High Court Must Be in English and Committee May Refuse Competency Certificate for Lack of English Proficiency

1) Introduction

In SANJAYBHAI BHIKHABHAI PARVADIYA v. PRANAV S. DAVE, JUDICIAL REGISTRAR & ANR. (Gujarat High Court, decided on 12-01-2026), the petitioner invoked the writ jurisdiction of the High Court to challenge a Certificate dated 21.08.2025 issued by the competent Committee, which refused permission to the petitioner to argue before the High Court as a party-in-person.

The petitioner’s core grievance was narrow but significant: he sought to argue his matter in Gujarati and contended that insistence on English for High Court proceedings infringed his rights. The respondents (including the Judicial Registrar) defended the Committee’s decision, emphasizing the governing legal position that oral submissions before the High Court must be in English, and that the petitioner admittedly did not understand English and would require an interpreter.

The key issue therefore was whether the Committee (and the High Court) could deny party-in-person permission on the ground that the petitioner lacked the ability to understand and express himself in English, and whether the petitioner could insist on arguing in Gujarati.

2) Summary of the Judgment

The Court dismissed the Special Civil Application, holding that there was no infirmity in the Committee’s Certificate dated 21.08.2025. Relying on binding guidance from the earlier Division Bench decision, the Court held that:

  • The official language of the Gujarat High Court is English, and oral presentation must be in English.
  • The Committee correctly assessed the petitioner as incompetent to assist the Court as party-in-person because he could not understand or express in English and lacked clarity to explain his case in English.
  • The petitioner was appropriately advised to engage an advocate or approach legal aid; in fact, legal aid counsel was provided for the present petition.

3) Analysis

A) Precedents Cited

The decision turns substantially on the Division Bench ruling in Criminal Reference No.4 of 2015 - Suo-motu v. Manish Kanaiyalal Gupta & Ors. (decision dated 08.07.2015), which the Court quoted and treated as controlling.

The 2015 decision, as reproduced in the 2026 order, laid down a structured framework:

  1. Official language: “The official language of the High Court of Gujarat is English” and case presentation must be in English.
  2. Committee certification: The Committee may certify competency only if minimum requirements are satisfied—ability to understand English, ability to express in English, and clarity of thought sufficient to explain the case “in nutshell” in English.
  3. Restriction on oral address: No party-in-person may address the Court in a language other than English unless competency is certified.
  4. Limited accommodation (written Gujarati): In a given case, the Court may permit written submissions in Gujarati, but oral submissions/presentation must still be in English.

In the present case, the petitioner argued that the 2015 ruling was misinterpreted by the Committee. The Court rejected that premise and instead held that the Committee’s reasoning and conclusion aligned with the 2015 parameters: since the petitioner could not understand or express in English, the refusal of permission to argue as party-in-person followed directly from the precedent.

B) Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning is essentially an application of an established rule to the petitioner’s admitted limitations:

  • Normative premise: Oral proceedings and presentation before the Gujarat High Court are to be conducted in English. This is treated not as a discretionary preference but as an institutional rule governing court functioning.
  • Gatekeeping mechanism: Because party-in-person advocacy can affect the quality and efficiency of adjudication, the Committee’s certification process is recognized as a legitimate filter requiring functional English proficiency and clarity to assist the Court.
  • Fact-application: The Certificate recorded that the petitioner (i) was 10th pass, (ii) could not understand English, (iii) could not express in English, and (iv) lacked clarity to explain facts in English. On these facts, he did not meet the minimum requirements specified in the 2015 decision.
  • Alternative access to justice preserved: The refusal to permit party-in-person argument did not leave the petitioner remediless; he was advised to engage counsel or seek legal aid, and legal aid counsel was in fact made available for the petition.

The Court thus framed the issue not as a denial of hearing, but as a regulation of mode of representation and language of oral advocacy in the High Court, balanced by availability of representation through counsel/legal aid.

C) Impact

Although the order does not innovate beyond the 2015 Division Bench formulation, it has practical precedential value in three ways:

  • Reinforcement of the English-only rule for oral submissions: Future litigants seeking to appear as party-in-person in the Gujarat High Court should expect that the ability to conduct oral advocacy in English is a threshold requirement.
  • Validation of Committee assessments: The order signals judicial deference to the Committee’s competency evaluation when it tracks the 2015 criteria and is supported by clear findings (understanding, expression, clarity).
  • Channeling toward counsel/legal aid: The decision emphasizes legal aid as the system’s answer where party-in-person participation is impractical due to language constraints—likely shaping administrative and judicial responses to similar requests.

4) Complex Concepts Simplified

  • Party-in-person: A litigant who represents himself/herself without an advocate. Courts may regulate this to ensure proceedings remain intelligible, efficient, and fair.
  • Writ petition / Special Civil Application: A proceeding invoking the High Court’s constitutional supervisory powers to challenge administrative or quasi-judicial actions (here, the Committee’s Certificate).
  • Competency Certificate (in this context): An administrative certification that a party-in-person has sufficient ability—particularly in English comprehension and expression—to assist the Court and conduct oral submissions.
  • Official language of the High Court (as applied here): The language in which oral proceedings and presentations are required to be conducted; the Court treated English as mandatory for oral advocacy.
  • Interpreter issue: If a party cannot understand court language, an interpreter may be needed; the Court’s approach implies that reliance on an interpreter is inconsistent with the “competency” threshold for party-in-person oral advocacy in the High Court.

5) Conclusion

The Gujarat High Court upheld the Committee’s refusal to permit the petitioner to argue as party-in-person, reaffirming that oral submissions before the High Court must be in English and that a party-in-person must satisfy minimum competence standards—understanding English, expressing in English, and clarity of thought in English—as articulated in Criminal Reference No.4 of 2015 - Suo-motu v. Manish Kanaiyalal Gupta & Ors.. The order’s broader significance lies in its confirmation that access to justice in such situations is safeguarded primarily through legal representation and legal aid, rather than by permitting oral advocacy in a language other than English.