No ban on arguing case in Tamil in high court: Division Bench

Observing that there was no ban on arguing in Tamil, Madras High Court Bench here today sent back two petitions which were dismissed by a single Judge after the advocates insisted on arguing in the language.
A division bench comprising Justice M Jaichandran and Justice M Venugopal set aside the order of the single judge who had dismissed the petitions on the ground that Constitution clearly stated that the language of the Supreme Court and high courts "shall be in English" and the case should be argued in English.
The judges said that there was no ban on arguing cases in Tamil and sent the two cases back to single judge for hearing.

Earlier, Justice S Manikumar said the court was constrained to dismiss the petitions "having regard to the Constitutional provision and the binding effect of the Constitutional Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in Madhu Limaye Vs Ved Murthi case in which the court held the court language was English."
Quoting the case, the judge said when advocate Raj Narain insisted that he would speak only in Hindi, the Supreme Court bench had pointed out that the Attorney General was opposing him (speaking in Hindi).
Some of the members of the Bench could not understand the arguments made in Hindi and the bench had observed that in the circumstances, it was futile to permit Raj Narain to speak in Hindi.

The apex court had also given three alternatives to Raj Narain, including to argue in English, or allow another lawyer to present his case, or submit a written argument in English. It had also said if he was not agreeable to the options, there was no other alternative except to cancel the intervention (dismissing), Justice Manikumar said.
Similarly in this case also, he said advocate Bhagavath Singh had options which he could have taken.
Besides, Art.348 of the Constitution clearly stated that the language of the Supreme Court and High courts "shall be in English", the judge had said and dismissed the petitions.