Section 3-A of The Haryana Official Language Act, 1969, mandates the use of Hindi as “sole official language” for work in civil and criminal courts subordinate to the High Court, and every other Tribunal too.
Advocates Sameer Jain, Sandeep Bajaj, Angad Sandhu, Suvigya Awasthi and Anant Gupta brought about this petition before High Court stating that Section 3A should be rendered constitutionally invalid due to its arbitrariness, unreasonableness, and inherent discrimination.
Bench of Justices Rajan Gupta and Karamjit Singh issued a notice in this regard.
The petitioners contend that the provision is arbitrary and discriminates unjustly between advocates who can and who cannot speak Hindi. It was stated that it acts a “barrier to justice”
This language barrier is violative of Article 19(1)g of the Constitution as it prohibits a group of advocates from appearing before the court while benefitting the other. It is discriminatory.
The Order issued by the bench states:
“He has inter alia contended that objective of
promulgating such notification is not clear and it has no rational nexus to object, if
any, sought to be achieved. According to him, notification is discriminatory in
nature and violates section 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. He has also
referred to section 30 of the Advocates Act, 1961 to contend that it is the right of
every advocate to practice all over India. However, due to language constraint,
some lawyers may not be able to do so as all law colleges teach in English
medium and hindi version of the legal terminologies is not known.”