Article 348

Article 348 of the Constitution of India defines the language to be used in the Supreme Court, High Courts, and for legislative and legal documents such as Acts, Bills, Ordinances, and subordinate legislation. It ensures a standard linguistic framework for the Indian judiciary and legislative processes, thereby maintaining legal clarity and uniformity across the nation.

Constitutional Context

India’s constitutional framers recognised the need for a consistent language of record in judicial and legislative affairs to ensure legal precision. While India is linguistically diverse, English was retained as the authoritative language in higher courts and legislative enactments because of its established role in legal drafting and interpretation during the British period. Article 348 thus reflects a pragmatic approach—balancing linguistic diversity with administrative and legal consistency.
The article has two major components:

1. The language used in court proceedings and judgments.
2. The language of legislative instruments such as Bills, Acts, and rules.

Clause (1) Provisions

Article 348(1) outlines the language requirements for judicial and legislative functions at the national and state levels.
Sub-clause (a): Language for Proceedings in Courts

• All proceedings in the Supreme Court and in every High Court must be conducted in English.
• This includes pleadings, arguments, judgments, decrees, and all forms of judicial documentation.
• The provision ensures that the legal system operates with uniform terminology and interpretation across states, preventing linguistic discrepancies in legal reasoning.

Sub-clause (b): Authoritative Texts in EnglishEnglish is declared the authoritative language for key legislative and legal instruments, including:

• Bills, amendments, and motions introduced or moved in either House of Parliament or in State Legislatures.
• Acts passed by Parliament or by State Legislatures, and Ordinances promulgated by the President or Governors.
• Orders, rules, regulations, and bye-laws issued under the Constitution or any law made by Parliament or State Legislatures.

This provision ensures that the English version of legislative texts is the authoritative reference in case of disputes or differences in translation, maintaining national legal uniformity.

Clause (2) Provisions

Article 348(2) introduces flexibility by allowing the use of Hindi or other official languages of a state in the proceedings of its High Court. However, this is subject to strict conditions:

• The use of such a language must be authorised by the Governor of the state, but only with the prior consent of the President of India.
• Even when such authorisation is granted, judgments, decrees, and orders must still be delivered in English to preserve legal uniformity and facilitate appeal to the Supreme Court.

This clause enables limited linguistic inclusion while maintaining the integrity of the national legal framework. For example, states like Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, and Bihar have received presidential approval to use Hindi in High Court proceedings, though final judgments remain in English.

Related Constitutional Articles

Several other articles complement Article 348 in shaping India’s official language policy:

• Article 343: Declares Hindi in the Devanagari script as the official language of the Union.
• Article 344: Provides for the appointment of a Commission and Committee to review and recommend measures for promoting the official language.
• Article 351: Directs the Union to promote the development of Hindi as a means of expression for India’s composite culture.

Together, these provisions form a coherent structure governing language use in administration, judiciary, and legislation.

Judicial Interpretations and Case Laws

Indian courts have delivered several important rulings interpreting Article 348 and the role of English in the judiciary:

• State of Uttar Pradesh v. Raj Narain (1975): Emphasised that English serves as a unifying medium in legal communication, essential for uniformity and accessibility in the judicial system.
• K. K. Verma v. Union of India (1954): Discussed the necessity of maintaining English for legislative and judicial purposes until a smooth transition to Indian languages becomes feasible.
• M. C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987): Reiterated the importance of English in environmental law cases, noting that consistency in legal language aids effective implementation.
• K. S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017): Highlighted that while language rights are fundamental to inclusivity, the judiciary’s uniformity of language is equally crucial for legal coherence.

These cases collectively affirm that Article 348 safeguards legal precision and facilitates consistency in judicial communication across India’s multilingual states.

Legislative Framework

Parliament holds the power to legislate on the use of languages in judicial proceedings and legislative matters. The Official Languages Act, 1963, and subsequent amendments, particularly those introduced in 1967, provide the statutory basis for continuing the use of English alongside Hindi.
Under these provisions:

• English continues to be used for official and judicial purposes unless otherwise directed by law.
• State legislatures may seek the President’s approval for the use of regional languages in their High Courts.

This dual-language policy allows gradual linguistic development while preventing disruptions to the legal system.

Practical Implications

Article 348 has profound practical implications for India’s judicial and administrative systems:

• Uniformity and Clarity: English ensures consistency in legal terminology, making it easier to interpret precedents across jurisdictions.
• Accessibility Challenges: Non-English-speaking litigants and lawyers, particularly in regional courts, often face difficulties in understanding and engaging with legal documents.
• Legal Education: Most legal education in India continues to be delivered in English, further entrenching its dominance in higher judiciary and legislative processes.
• Translation and Interpretation Issues: While translations are used in subordinate courts and regional legislatures, the authoritative English text remains decisive in legal interpretation.

Significance of Article 348

The article serves multiple constitutional purposes:

• Ensures Legal Uniformity: Establishes a single authoritative language for legal enactments and judicial proceedings.
• Facilitates Federal Integration: Enables consistent communication between the Supreme Court and High Courts across states.
• Balances Regional and National Interests: While English is retained for higher courts, subordinate courts and administrative bodies may use regional languages.

By maintaining a unified linguistic standard in the judiciary, Article 348 upholds both the integrity and functionality of India’s legal system.

Contemporary Trends and Debates

In recent years, debates have intensified regarding the possible use of regional languages in High Courts and even in the Supreme Court. Proponents argue that allowing regional languages would make the judicial system more accessible to ordinary citizens, while opponents caution that such changes could fragment judicial coherence and complicate appeals to higher courts.
Several states have submitted proposals to the Union Government seeking authorisation for the use of local languages in High Court proceedings. The Supreme Court has also initiated pilot projects for translating judgments into regional languages to improve accessibility.