Madhu Limaye And Another v. Ved Murti And Others

Factual and Procedural Background

This matter arises in the context of a habeas corpus petition described by the Court as “involving the liberty of the citizen.” The petitioner, Mr. Raj Narain, insisted on addressing the Bench in Hindi. The Court accommodated him for a short time but noted that the Attorney-General, Mr. C.K. Daphtary, and some members of the Bench could not understand Hindi. Although Mr. Raj Narain had counsel (Mr. D.P. Singh) present, he maintained his wish to argue personally in Hindi. The Court proposed three alternatives—(a) that he argue in English; (b) that his counsel argue on his behalf; or (c) that he submit written arguments in English. When Mr. Raj Narain declined all three options, the Court proceeded to decide on the permissibility of his continued oral intervention.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether a party before the Supreme Court of India may insist on addressing the Court in Hindi when Article 348 of the Constitution designates English as the language of the Court.
2. Whether refusal to adopt Court-approved alternatives (use of English, representation through counsel, or written submissions in English) warrants cancellation of the party’s right of oral intervention.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner (Mr. Raj Narain)

• Insisted on the right to present oral arguments in Hindi.

Respondent / Attorney-General (Mr. C.K. Daphtary)

• Stated that he could not understand the arguments delivered in Hindi, implicitly objecting to their continuation.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court began by acknowledging the importance of a habeas corpus petition but emphasised the practical necessity that all members of the Bench and opposing counsel understand the submissions. Relying expressly on Article 348 of the Constitution, which establishes English as the language of the Supreme Court, the judges concluded that arguments delivered in Hindi could not be permitted when they were not comprehensible to the Bench or the opposing side. To balance the petitioner’s desire to be heard with institutional requirements, the Court offered three alternatives: oral argument in English, representation by counsel, or written submissions in English. Mr. Raj Narain’s refusal to accept any of these options left the Court “no alternative” but to cancel his oral intervention.

Holding and Implications

The Court cancelled Mr. Raj Narain’s intervention.

Direct effect: Mr. Raj Narain could no longer address the Court orally in Hindi; further presentation of his case had to occur through one of the Court-approved methods. Broader implication: the order reaffirms that, under Article 348, English remains the operative language of the Supreme Court, and parties cannot insist on oral arguments in another language when comprehension by the Bench and opposing counsel is compromised. The decision sets no new precedent but underscores adherence to the constitutional language requirement.