The Supreme Court of India on Thursday firmly dismissed the assumption that language barriers do not exist in Kerala, asserting that language accessibility cannot be taken for granted in judicial proceedings.
While rejecting an argument that “everybody knows English” in the southern state, a Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta ordered the transfer of a child custody and divorce dispute from Kerala to Ludhiana in Punjab to ensure the mother could effectively participate.
‘Even If They Know English, They Don’t Want to Speak’
The exchange over language arose during a hearing for a transfer petition filed by a UK-based wife. Seeking to keep the legal battle in Kerala, Advocate Aljo Joseph, representing the husband, strongly opposed transferring the case, arguing that the proceedings would not present any linguistic hurdles.
“Everybody knows English in Kerala,” Joseph contended, adding that Kerala is a “language-friendly State.”
Justice Sandeep Mehta pushed back firmly against this claim.
“It’s very difficult there. Don’t tell us,” the Court observed. “Even if they know English, they don’t want to speak.”
The Bench underscored that language accessibility is a critical factor in fair trials and cannot merely be assumed.
A Cross-Border Custody Battle
The legal dispute involves a couple who married in 2017 and lived together until 2023, when they relocated to the United Kingdom. Following the breakdown of their marriage, the husband returned to India with their minor child and initiated multiple legal proceedings in Kerala, including filings for divorce and child custody.
The wife, who remains in the UK, petitioned the Supreme Court to shift the proceedings to Ludhiana. Her counsel, Advocate Kunal R. Choksi, submitted that his client has been unable to effectively contest the case due to several constraints, with language barriers being a primary obstacle. Choksi added that the wife’s mother, who is managing the legal fight on her behalf in India, faces similar language difficulties in Kerala.
Prioritizing Fair Participation in Custody Disputes
The husband opposed the transfer on multiple grounds. He argued that since the wife resides abroad, the specific Indian forum would not materially affect her. Furthermore, he noted that the child has been living with him in Kerala for the past three years and argued that the proceedings should remain there.
The Supreme Court, however, was not persuaded. The Bench noted that the wife had been unable to participate effectively in the Kerala proceedings so far—a shortcoming it deemed highly critical, particularly in a dispute involving child custody.
During the hearing, the Court did weigh the practical inconveniences of the transfer, specifically regarding the minor child. The Bench observed that if it needs to interact with the child in the future, it would be inappropriate to expect the child to undertake frequent, long-distance travel.
Ultimately, prioritizing the wife’s right to an effective defense, the Supreme Court allowed the petition and directed that all pending proceedings be shifted from Kerala to a court in Ludhiana, Punjab.
