HC’s language is English, speak only English: CJ

Appearing before the division bench on Monday after execution of bail from a lower court at a personal bond of Rs 5,000, Vyas informed that he will address the court in Gujarati, despite immediate refusal of the same by Chief Justice (CJ) Aravind Kumar.

ಉಚ್ಛ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯದಲ್ಲಿ ಗುಜರಾತಿ ಮಾತನಾಡಲು ಮುಂದಾದ ಗುಜರಾತಿಗನಿಗೆ ಕನ್ನಡದಲ್ಲಿ ಛಿ ಮಾರಿ ಹಾಕಿದ ನ್ಯಾಯಮೂರ್ತಿಗಳು. pic.twitter.com/2U7DgaF4cy

— Karnata Suddi (@SuddiKarnata) January 8, 2022

CJ Kumar added that “high court language is English, you should speak only English” while offering that the court can provide an interpreter or a lawyer if necessary. The court also said that if he cannot afford a lawyer, Gujarat State Legal Services Authority will provide one.

Vyas, however, continued to speak in Gujarati and Hindi, adding that he can only speak in Gujarati as “it is Gujarat” drawing the court’s ire. The bench recorded in its order, “The contemnor submits that he will speak only in Gujarati language and he will not speak in any other language.”

“We are not inclined to accept his submissions for reasons more than one. First, we will not permit the contemnor to address the court in the language which is not understood by this court (by the Chief Justice) and secondly Article 348 of the Constitution mandates that the language of the high court would be English and as such the submission of the contemnor cannot be accepted,” the order also said.

The case relates to suo motu contempt proceedings initiated by the Gujarat HC against ‘Samna Brashtachar Ka’ and Vyas in 2014.

A division bench of then Justices MR Shah and RD Kothari had taken suo motu cognisance of a letter of an additional senior civil judge and additional chief judicial magistrate (ACJM) of a Gandhingar court, intimating about a news item published in the newspaper against a judicial order passed by the Gandhinagar ACJM.

The court on considering and reading the contents of the news item published in the newspaper had prima facie opined that the said news item and contents are “contemptuous and may tantamount to criminal contempt within the meaning of Section 2(c) of Contempt of Courts Act.”

The bench granted time until December 5 for Vyas to arrange for a lawyer.