http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: MADHU LIMAYE AND ANR.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: VED MURTI & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 10/09/1970

BENCH: HIDAYATULLAH, M. (CJ) BENCH: HIDAYATULLAH, M. (CJ) SHELAT, J.M. BHARGAVA, VISHISHTHA MITTER, G.K. VAIDYIALINGAM, C.A. RAY, A.N. DUA, I.D.

CITATION:  1971 AIR 2608            1971 SCR  (1) 145

ACT: Supreme   Court-Language  of  court  is   English-Intervener seeking permission to argue in Hindi-Such permission,  could not  be  extended  when counsel on both  sides  and  several members  of  Bench  could not  follow  arguments  in  Hindi- Alternatives suggested by court not accepted by  intervener- Intervention must be cancelled.

HEADNOTE: R  was  allowed  to intervene in a petition for  a  writ  of habeas  corpius under Art. 32 of the Constitution.   He  was allowed, at hi-, request,. to address the court in Hindi but counsel  on  both sides as well as several  members  of  the Bench  were unable to follow his argument.  He was asked  by the  court to address the court in English, or to allow  his counsel to present his case, or to give written arguments in English.  He refused to accept any of these suggestions. HELD  :  In  the circumstances it was futile  to  allow  the intervener to continue his arguments in Hindi.  The language of  the  court being English and the  intervener  not  being agreeable  to any of the suggestions made to him,  the  only alternative for the court was to cancel his intervention.

JUDGMENT: ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition No. 307 of 1970. Petition  under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India  for  a writ in the nature of habeas corpus. Petitioner No. 1 appeared in person. K.   Rajendra Chaudhuri and Pratap Singh, for petitioner No. 2. C.   D.  Daphtary,  L. M. Singhvi and O. P.  Rana,  for  the respondents. Niren De, Attorney-General, R. H. Dhebar, H. R. Khanna, S.   P.  Nayar and R. N. Sachthey, for Attorney-General  and Union of  India.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

S. C. Agarwal, D. P. Singh and Rai Narain (in person), for the  intervener.                            ORDER Mr.  Rai Narain yesterday insisted on arguing in Hindi.   He was  heard for sometime with a view to see whether we  could follow  him,  simply  because  this  is  a  habeas  petition involving  the  liberty  of the  citizen.   Because  of  the importance  of the case, we heard him for sometime, but  the Attorney-General, Mr. Daphtary who is opposing him and  some of  the  members  of  the Bench  could  not  understand  the arguments made in Hindi yesterday.  In these  circumstances, it is futile to permit Mr. Raj Narain to continue his 146 arguments  in  Hindi.   He has a counsel  Mr.  D.  P.  Singh already  in  attendance and helping him.  We  suggested  the following three alternatives, (a)  that he may argue in English; or (b)  he may allow his counsel to present his case; or (c)  he may give his written arguments in English. The  language of this Court is English (see Art. 348 of  the Constitution).  If Mr. Raj Narain is not agreeable to  these suggestions,  and  we  understand,  he  is  not,  the   only alternative for us is to cancel his intervention.  We  order accordingly. G.C. 147