{
  "id": 17472944,
  "title": "Madras High Court Advocates Association challenges 1965 Union Cabinet decision to continue English as common language for Supreme Court and all High Courts",
  "url": "https://urgent.news/2026/10/31/madras-high-court-advocates-association-challenges-1965-union-cabinet",
  "topic": "world",
  "section": "World",
  "published": "2026-10-31T20:57:53.000Z",
  "source": {
    "name": "The Hindu",
    "slug": "the-hindu",
    "url": "https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/tamil-nadu/madras-high-court-advocates-association-challenges-1965-union-cabinet-decision-to-continue-english-as-common-language-for-supreme-court-and-all-high-courts/article71648537.ece"
  },
  "original_language": "en",
  "account": "The Madras High Court Advocates Association has filed a petition in the High Court challenging a 1965 Union Cabinet decision that English should remain the common language for all High Courts in India until Hindi could become sufficiently developed to replace it. The first division bench of Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan will hear the case on November 2, 2026.\n\nThe association argues that continuing to use English in High Courts violates the constitutional rights to equality (Article 14), freedom of speech and expression (Article 19) and right to life (Article 21). Secretary S. Arivazhagan revealed that the association only discovered the 1965 Cabinet decision last year through a Right to Information (RTI) request.\n\nThe association emphasizes that the long-desired move to make Tamil the official language of the Madras High Court should not be hindered by the Cabinet decision. They point out that a 1965 conference chaired by Chief Justice of India P.B. Gajendragadkar recommended English continue as the common language until Hindi becomes \"rich and ripe enough\" to take its place. The Ministry of Home Affairs then advised the Cabinet, which approved it on May 21, 1965.\n\nThe MHAA contends that the requirement for the Chief Justice's consultation under Article 348(2) of the Constitution is unnecessary, arguing that consultation is not the same as mandatory consent. They question how the CJI's consultation can be introduced through executive decision when Article 348(2) doesn't prescribe such a requirement. The association also notes that other State proposals to permit regional languages in High Court proceedings, such as Tamil Nadu's, have been rejected by the Centre.\n\nThe Madurai Bar Association has filed a separate petition seeking a declaration that litigants have the right to communicate in a language they understand, and a direction for the Center to take necessary steps under Article 348(2) of the Constitution.",
  "summary": "Says, the 1965 decision came to its notice only in 2025 pursuant to details obtained by a lawyer under the Right to Information Act, 2005",
  "key_points": [
    "Petition argues English violates constitutional rights to equality, speech, and life",
    "Association emphasizes Tamil should replace English, not hindered by 1965 decision"
  ],
  "editors_take": null,
  "illustration": null,
  "coverage": {
    "outlets": 3,
    "also_reported_by": [
      {
        "outlet": "The Hill",
        "title": "5 state Supreme Court races to watch on Tuesday",
        "url": "https://urgent.news/2026/10/31/5-state-supreme-court-races-to-watch-on-tuesday",
        "published": "2026-10-31T21:00:00.000Z"
      },
      {
        "outlet": "3News",
        "title": "Who among the 6 top rated Supreme Court judges is likely to succeed Chief Justice Baffoe-Bonnie",
        "url": "https://urgent.news/2026/10/31/who-among-the-6-top-rated-supreme-court-judges-is-likely-to-succeed",
        "published": "2026-10-31T21:27:54.000Z"
      }
    ]
  },
  "ai_generated": true,
  "disclaimer": "Summaries, key points and the editor’s take are written by software from other outlets’ reporting and may contain errors — always check the linked original."
}