Refusing to permit a counsel for a petitioner to present arguments in Tamil, the Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) dismissed a petition citing a precedent laid by the Supreme Court.
Appearing for Ayesha Banu, a daily wage earner from Kovilpatti in Thoothukudi district, who sought the court’s intervention to rescue her husband Bakeer Maideen who is stranded in Mecca for over 21 months after losing his passport, lawyer G Bhagvath Singh argued the matter in Tamil.
However, Justice S Manikumar directed him to present arguments in English, the only accepted language of communication in the higher courts as per Article 348 of the Indian Constitution. When Singh persisted on arguing in Tamil, the judge dismissed the petition and also turned down the lawyer’s plea to post the case before some other judge . In his order Justice Manikumar pointed out in the Madhu Limaye Vs Vedamurthy case in 1970, the Supreme Court (SC) had restrained one Raj Narain from presenting arguments in Hindi.
In that case, the Bench had head the arguments in Hindi for some time.
But as the then Attorney General opposed it stating that some members on the Bench could not understand Hindi, the judges had suggested three alternatives: One, Raj Narain may argue in English, two, he may allow his counsel to present the case or third, he may submit written arguments in English.
When Raj Narain refused to agree, the SC bench had cancelled his intervention.