The Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court has ruled that in the event of a discrepancy or conflict between the Hindi and English versions of a state law or regulation, the English version shall be considered the authoritative text. The decision came in a writ petition filed by a candidate seeking consideration for a government post based on the Hindi version of the service rules, which differed from its English counterpart. Justice Manish Mathur dismissed the petition, affirming the constitutional supremacy of the authoritative English text under Article 348(3) of the Constitution of India.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Maya Shukla @ Maya Mishra, filed a writ petition seeking a direction to the Lower Subordinate Service Selection Commission to permit her to participate in the selection process for the post of “cutting swing”. Her claim was based on the U.P. Audhyogik Shikshan Sansthan (Anudeshak) Sewa Niyamavali, 2014 (U.P. Industrial Training Institutes (Instructors) Service Rules, 2014).
Arguments of the Parties
Appearing for the petitioner, advocates Jitendra Kumar Pandey and Ankit Pandey argued that her eligibility and merit should be calculated according to Rule 16(3)(ka)(Da) of the Hindi version of the 2014 Service Rules. This clause specifies that for the selection process, “twenty percent of the marks obtained in the National Trade Certificate/National Apprenticeship Certificate examination” shall be awarded to each candidate.
Opposing the petition, advocates Gaurav Mehrotra and Utsav Mishra, along with the Chief Standing Counsel (C.S.C.), representing the respondents, submitted that the petitioner’s candidature was not considered because the recruitment advertisement, issued in November 2015, was framed in accordance with the English version of the same rules. Rule 16(3)(a)(ii) of the English text, known as the U.P. Industrial Training Institutes (Instructors) Service Rules, 2014, stipulates that “Twenty percent of the percentage of marks secured in the National Trade Certificate Test/ National Apprenticeship Certificate Test shall be given to each candidate”. The respondents contended that in cases of contradiction, the English version must prevail as per Article 348(3) of the Constitution.
Court’s Analysis and Findings
Justice Manish Mathur, upon examining the submissions and records, noted a “clear dichotomy” between the Hindi and English versions of the rule. The central question before the court was which version would prevail.
The Court’s analysis focused on Article 348(3) of the Constitution of India, which states:
“Notwithstanding anything in sub-clause (b) of clause (1), where the Legislature of a State has prescribed any language other than the English language for use in Bills introduced in, or Acts passed by, the Legislature of the State or in Ordinances promulgated by the Governor of the State or in any order, rule, regulation or bye-law referred to in paragraph (iii) of that sub-clause, a translation of the same in the English language published under the authority of the Governor of the State in the Official Gazette of that State shall be deemed to be the authoritative text thereof in the English language under this article.”
The Court found that Clause 3 of Article 348 “clearly prescribes an aspect that in case of any dichotomy between the vernacular language and English language, it is the English language which will be considered to be authoritative.”
The judgment relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Prabhat Kumar Sharma versus Union Public Service Commission and others, (2006) 10 SCC 587, which, after reviewing Article 348 and the Official Languages Act, 1963, concluded that “English continues to remain the authoritative text in respect of the Acts of Parliament.”
The Court also extensively cited a five-judge Full Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court in Smt. Ram Rati and others versus Gram Samaj Jehwa, AIR 1974 Allahabad 106 (FB). The Full Bench had held that even if a state act is passed in Hindi, “its translation in the English language shall be regarded its authoritative text and shall prevail over its Hindi version.” It further clarified that it is beyond the competence of a State Legislature to declare an authoritative text in a language other than English, as such a power vests only in the Parliament.
The court distinguished the judgments cited by the petitioner, observing that they had either not made any reference to Article 348 or had not considered Clause (3) of the said Article.
Decision of the Court
Concluding its analysis, the Court held that the established legal position, derived from both the Constitution and judicial precedents, mandates that the English version of a law prevails over any translation.
The judgment stated, “In view of aforesaid facts & circumstances, it is quite evident that not only in terms of Article 348(3) of Constitution of India, but also in terms of judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court and Full Bench decision of this court, it would be the English version of any Hindi translation of a bill or order or service regulations which would prevail.”
As the petitioner was seeking the benefit of the Hindi version, which the court found to be non-authoritative in this context, the petition was dismissed at the admission stage. The parties were directed to bear their own costs.
