A
B
14.5
MAOHU LIMA YE AND ANR.
v.
VED MURTI & ORS.
September 10, 1970
[M. HIDAYATULLAH, C.J.,
J. M. SHELAT,
G. K. MITTER, C. A. VAIDIALINGAM, A.
I. D. DuA, JJ.]
V. BHARGAVA,
N. RAY AND
Supreme Court-Language of court is Eng/lsh-I'ntervener seeking
permission to argue in Hindi-Such permis~ion, could not be exterttkd
when counsel on both sides and several members of Bench could not
follow argumelt/s in Hindi-Alternatives .mggested by court not accepted
C
by intervener-Intervention must be cancelled,
R was allowed to intervene in a petition 'for a writ of liabeas corpu.<
under Art. 32 of the Constitution.
He was a\lowed, at his request,
to
address the court in Hindi but. counsel on both sides as well aa 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
O
to accept any of these suggestions.
.
HELD · In the circumstances it was futile to allow the intervener to
continue hi; arguments in Hin\li. 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.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition No. 307 of 1970.
E
Petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India for a writ
G
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 0. P. Rana, for the respon-
dents.
Niren De, /fttorney-General, R. H. Dhebar, H. R. Khanna,
S. P. Nayar and R. N. Sachthey, for Attorney-Gene1a! and Ul!l!ion
of India.
S. C. Agarwal, D. P. Singh and Raj Narain (in person), for
the intervener.
ORDER
Mr. Raj Narain yesterday insisted on arguing in Hindi.
He
was heard for sometime with a view to see whether we could
f~llow him, si~~ly because this is a habeas petition involving the
liberty of the c1tmm.
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 ot. the Bench could
n?t unde!Jitand the :u~ents made in Hindi yesterday. In these
circumstances, it is futtle to permit Mr. Raj Narain to continue his
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1971 J 2 s.c.R.'
argumemlts 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 preSQll( his case; or
( c) he may give his written arguments in English.
The language of ws Court is English (see Art. 348 of the
Constitution). If Mr. Raj Narain is not agreeable to these sugges.
tions, and we understand, he is not, the only alternative for us is
to ca.nee! his intervention.
We order accordingly.
G.C.
B:
c
Lex