Single judge order on Tamil arguments challenged

Published: 03rd September 2013 08:43 AM  |   Last Updated: 03rd September 2013 08:43 AM   |  A+A-

A single judge’s order dismissing a case on the grounds that the petitioner’s counsel had presented arguments in Tamil has been challenged in the Madras High Court (Madurai Bench).

On July 10, Justice Manikumar had dismissed a petition filed by a daily wager from Thoothukudi, Ayesha Banu, seeking a direction to the authorities to rescue her husband Bakeer Moideen, who is stranded in Mecca for over 21 months after losing his passport, since the counsel G Bhagvath Singh argued the matter in Tamil.

Pointing out that English is the only accepted language of communication in the higher courts as per Article 348 of the Indian Constitution the judge had dismissed the petition.

Appealing against the verdict, Ayesha submitted that the single judge failed to consider the merit and urgency of the case.

Petitioner submitted that Article 350 of the Constitution states that every person shall be entitled to submit a representation for the redress of grievance to any officer or authority of the Union or a State in any of the languages used in the Union or in the State.

Further in 2007, the Madras High Court had accepted the resolution passed by the TN Legislative Assembly and subsequently in 2010 the then Chief Justice of Madras HC accepted the demands of the lawyers to allow them to argue in Tamil.

Countering the citation made by the judge on the basis of the Madhu Limaye Vs Vedamurthy case in 1970 in which, the Supreme Court had restrained one Raj Narain from presenting arguments in Hindi, the petitioner stated that Raj Narain was allowed to advance his argument in Hindi on first day. However, in the petitioner’s case the situation is diametrically opposite as the Government Advocate has not objected to the argument being present in Tamil. Also, the prosecution counsel and the judge were well versed in Tamil.

Hearing the plea, a bench comprising Justices M Jaichandren and M Venugopal adjourned the case to September 12.


Disclaimer : We respect your thoughts and views! But we need to be judicious while moderating your comments. All the comments will be moderated by the editorial. Abstain from posting comments that are obscene, defamatory or inflammatory, and do not indulge in personal attacks. Try to avoid outside hyperlinks inside the comment. Help us delete comments that do not follow these guidelines.

The views expressed in comments published on are those of the comment writers alone. They do not represent the views or opinions of or its staff, nor do they represent the views or opinions of The New Indian Express Group, or any entity of, or affiliated with, The New Indian Express Group. reserves the right to take any or all comments down at any time.

flipboard facebook twitter whatsapp