Madras High Court
S.Venkatesan vs Minister Of State For on 19 August, 2021
W.P.(MD).No.17006 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 19.08.2021
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.KIRUBAKARAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY
W.P.(MD).No.17006 of 2020
and
W.M.P.(MD).Nos.14214 & 14216 of 2020
S.Venkatesan,
S/o.Subburam,
Rani Mangammal Chathiram,
Opp. to Railway Station,
Periyar Bus Stand,
Mdurai 625 001. ... Petitioner
Vs
1.Minister of State for
Home Affairs,
Government of India,
North Block, New Delhi 110001.
2.The Joint Secretary,
Government of India,
Department of Official Language,
Ministry of Home Affairs,
NDCC-II Bhawan,
'B' Wing 4th Floor, Jain Singh Road,
New Delhi – 110001.
3.The Director General,
Central Reserve Police Force,
Level-IV, East Block-7,
R.K.Puram, New Delhi - 110001. ... Respondents
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/22
W.P.(MD).No.17006 of 2020
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to ensure
that all communications between the Union of India and the State of Tamil
Nadu and its people and also with Members of Parliament belonging to the
State of Tamil Nadu shall be in English language alone and appropriate action
should be taken against the concerned officials responsible for violating the
said procedure.
For Petitioner :Mr.M.Purushothaman
For Respondents :Mrs.L.Victoria Gowri
Assistant Solicitor General of India
ORDER
N.KIRUBAKARAN.J.
India is multi linguistic;
India is multi racial;
India is multi religious;
India is multi ethnic and
India is multi cultural.
Unity in diversity represents India. When a country's masses have different
cultural, linguistic, ethnic and religious identities, the same shall be maintained
and protected in the interest of the unity of our great country. If Any attempt is
made to disturb or destroy or interfere with any of the aforesaid issues,
especially languages, it could become a sensitive issue. During freedom
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD).No.17006 of 2020
struggle, many leaders of our country, have shed blood, lost their lives,
undergone incarceration and sacrificed their properties and profession, out of
patriotism, for our motherland. Their sacrifices would be honoured only by
respecting the identities of the citizens. Be it language, race, religion or region,
any discrimination would definitely cause an uprising in the society which may
lead to splitting of the country which should be avoided. Any kind of
fanaticism is not good for any society. Fanaticism, in any form, is to be
condemned, if it is exhibited. Linguistic fanaticism is more dangerous as it
would give an impression that one language alone is superior and being
imposed upon the people speaking different languages. When even an
apprehension should not be created that a particular language is surpassed or
sidelined in a multi-linguistic country like ours, a few chosen languages are
getting princely status with enormous money allotted for development of those
languages alone.
2.The VIII Schedule of our Constitution speaks about 22 languages and
they are as follows:
1. Assamese. 2. Bengali. 3. Bodo. 4. Dogri. 5. Gujarati. 6. Hindi. 7.
Kannada. 8. Kashmiri. 9. Konkani. 10. Maithili. 11. Malayalam. 12.
Manipuri. 13. Marathi. 14. Nepali. 15. Oriya. 16. Punjabi. 17.
Sanskrit. 18. Santhali. 19. Sindhi. 20. Tamil. 21. Telugu. 22. Urdu
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD).No.17006 of 2020
It is not as if 22 languages alone are spoken in India, but more than thousands
of languages are spoken. It is very interesting and surprising to note that certain
languages, which are being spoken by a few hundreds of people, are included in
VIII Schedule, whereas languages, like Gondi, which is spoken by more than
one crore people belonging to different States, like Andhra Pradesh, Uttranchal,
Odiya, Madhya Pradesh and Karnataka are not included for the reasons best
known to the successive Union Government. It should be the endeavour of the
Government, especially, the Union Government to develop all the languages of
the country, so that, the languages are protected and are passed on to the next
generation.
3.As evident from the reports of Kodumanal excavation site in Erode
District, Tamil language had developed even before 400 BC, which is
scientifically proved by doing Carbon Dating Test on the pottery sets found
with Tamil inscriptions. Keeladi excavation reports proved that Tamil
language was used during 500 BC. The above facts should not be mistaken and
misunderstood that Tamil was used only during 500 BC. Even before 500 BC,
the said language was used by the masses. Therefore, Tamil should have been
the language of masses, atleast, around 3000 to 4000 BC. It is not to promote
the literary value of Tamil language, but it is only to see that the ancient
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD).No.17006 of 2020
language is protected if it is continued to be used by the masses and used by
the Government.
4.The Central Government understood the importance of all the languages
of the country and formulated a National Educational Policy, which gives much
thrust and importance to mother tongue in education. As per the said
educational policy, the elementary education should be in mother tongue upto
V Standard. The Government's policy should be welcomed as it is in the
interest of all the languages. When such is the importance given to the
languages of the country, it seems that a few officials in the Respondent
Government either without understanding the sensitivity of the issue or by
inadvertence, are bent upon using Hindi in communications and other official
matters, which make the people to think that the said language is being thrust
upon them contrary to the provisions of the Official Languages Act, 1963 as
amended by the Official Languages (Amendment) Act, 1967.
5.One such person who is none other than the Member of Parliament
representing Madurai Constituency has knocked the doors of this Court against
the use of Hindi in the reply given to him on 09.11.2020, pursuant to the
representation, dated 09.10.2020 given by him with regard to non-notifying any
centre in Tamil Nadu for the recruitment of 24 posts of Group 'B' and 'C' staff
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD).No.17006 of 2020
on all India basis for a total number of 780 declared vacancies. Aggrieved over
the reply given in Hindi, the Petitioner has come before this Court by way of
Public Interest Litigation, seeking direction to ensure that the communication
between the Union of India and the State of Tamil Nadu, its people and also
with the Members of Parliament shall be in English alone and take appropriate
action against the concerned officials, who are responsible for violation.
6.A counter affidavit has been filed by the Respondents admitting the
provisions of the Official Languages Act, 1963 and the necessity to use English
language in the communication between the Union and the States, which has
not adopted Hindi as their official language. However, in Paragraph 6, it has
been stated that inadvertently, in the instant case, reply was submitted in Hindi
and immediately, English version of the same was communicated to the
Member of Parliament. Further, there is no intention to violate the provisions
contained in the Official Languages Act, 1963 and the Official Languages (Use
for Official Purpose of the Union) Rules, 1976.
7.Heard Mr.M.Purushothaman, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
Petitioner and Mrs.L.Victoria Gowri, learned Assistant Solicitor General of
India appearing on behalf of the Respondents.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD).No.17006 of 2020
8.Mr.M.Purushothaman, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
Petitioner would submit his case relying upon the provisions of the Official
Languages Act and the Rules and Article 343 of the Constitution of India and a
judgment of Uttarakhand High Court in the case of State Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission Vs. Uttarakhand State Information Commission and
Ors., reported in MANU/UC/0700/2010 equivalent to AIR 2010 Utr 55.
9.However, Mrs.L.Victoria Gowri, learned Assistant Solicitor General of
India appearing on behalf of the Respondents would contend that the Central
Government goes by the Official Languages Act and the Rules and there is no
intention on the part of the Central Government to violate any provisions of the
Official Languages Act, 1963 and the Rules, 1976 and all the communications
from the Central Government to the State Governments are being made only in
English and she would seek disposal of the Writ Petition based on the
explanation given in the counter affidavit. In paragraph 6 of the counter
affidavit, it has been stated that inadvertently, reply was given to the Member
of Parliament in Hindi and there is no intention to violate the provisions
contained in the said Act. Paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit of the
Respondents is extracted as follows:
“6. It is most humbly submitted that, in response to Para Nos.9, 10, 11 & 12
of the affidavit, the Hon'ble Member of Parliament (Lok Sabha) in his
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD).No.17006 of 2020
affidavit has submitted that as per proviso to Section 3 of the Official
Languages Act, 1963, English Language shall be used between the Union and
the State, which has not adopted Hindi as its official language. In terms of
provisions contained in Official Languages Act, 1963 and Official Languages
Rules, 1976, the official communication with the States which have not
adopted Hindi as its official language is being made in English alone.
However, inadvertently, in the instant case, reply was submitted to the
Hon'ble Member of Parliament (Lok Sabha) in Hindi and immediately
English version of the same was communicated to the Hon'ble Member of
Parliament (petitioner). However, there was/is no intention to violate the
provision contained in the Official Languages Act, 1963 and Official
Languages Rules, 1976, and all communication by the Central Government
with the State Government of Tamil Nadu are being made in English only.”
10.The object of the Official Languages Act, 1963 as amended by 1967
Act, is extracted as follows:
“An Act to provide for the languages which may be used for the official
purpose of the Union, for transaction of business in Parliament, for Central
and State Acts and for certain purpose in High Courts. ”
The Act is to identify and state the languages which could be useful for the
official purpose of communication in Parliament for Central Government and
State Governments. Section 3 of the Official Languages Act, 1963 is usefully
extracted as follows:
“3 Continuation of English Language for official purposes of the Union
and for use in Parliament-
1. Notwithstanding the expiration of the period of fifteen years from the
commencement of the Constitution, the English language may, as from the
appointed day, continue to be used in addition to Hindi,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD).No.17006 of 2020
a. for all the official purposes of the Union for which it was being used
immediately before that day; and
b. for the transaction of business in Parliament:
Provided that the English language shall be used for purposes of
communication between the Union and a State which has not adopted
Hindi as its Official Language:
Provided further that where Hindi is used for purposes of communication
between one State which has adopted Hindi as its official language and
another State which has not adopted Hindi as its Official Language, such
communication in Hindi shall be accompanied by a translation of the
same in the English language:
Provided also that nothing in this sub-section shall be construed as
preventing a State which has not adopted Hindi as its official language
from using Hindi for purposes of communication with the Union or with a
State which has adopted Hindi as its official language, or by agreement
with any other State, and in such a case, it shall not be obligatory to use
the English language for purposes of communication with that State.
2. Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) where Hindi or the
English Language is used for purposes of communication-
i. between one Ministry or Department or office of the Central Government
and another;
ii. between one Ministry or Department or office of the Central Government
and any corporation or company owned or controlled by the Central
Government or any office thereof.;
iii.between any corporation or company owned or controlled by the Central
Government or any office thereof and another,
Translation of such communication in the English language or, as the
case may be, in Hindi shall also be provided till such date as the staff of
the concerned Ministry, Department, office or the corporation or company
aforesaid have acquired a working knowledge of Hindi.
3. Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) both Hindi and the
English languages shall be used for-
0. resolutions, general orders, rules, notifications, administrative or other
reports or press communiques issued or made by the Central Government
or by a Ministry, Department or office thereof or by a corporation or
company owned or controlled by the Central Government or by any office
of such corporation or company;
i. administrative and other reports and official papers laid before a House
or the Houses of Parliament;
ii. contracts and agreements executed, and licenses, permits, notices and
forms of tender issued, by or on behalf of the Central Government or any
Ministry, Department or office thereof or by a corporation or company
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD).No.17006 of 2020
owned or controlled by the Central Government or by any office of such
corporation or company.
4. Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) or sub-
section (3) the Central Government may, by rules made under section 8, provide
for the language/languages to be used for the official purpose of the Union,
including the working of any Ministry, Department, Section or Office and in
making such rules, due consideration shall be given to the quick and efficient
disposal of the official business and the interests of the general public and in
particular, the rules so made shall ensure that persons serving in connection with
the affairs of the Union and having proficiency either in Hindi or in the English
language may function effectively and that they are not placed at a disadvantage
on the ground that they do not have proficiency in both the languages.
5. The provisions of clause (a) of sub-section (1), and the provisions of sub-section
(2), sub-section (3) and sub-section (4) shall remain in force until resolutions for
the discontinuance of the use of the English language for the purposes mentioned
therein have been passed by the legislatures of all the States which have not
adopted Hindi as their Official Language and until after considering the
resolution aforesaid, a resolution for such discontinuance has been passed by
each House of Parliament.”
From the above, it is clear that the use of English language has been continued
in addition to Hindi for official purposes for a period of 15 years. Further, the
English language shall be used for communication between the Union and the
States, which have not adopted Hindi as official language. Therefore, it is clear
that English language should be used for the purpose of communication
between the Union and the States which have not adopted Hindi as their official
language.
11.The issue raised by the Petitioner is squarely covered by the aforesaid
provision. From the above, it is clear that for the States which have not adopted
Hindi as their official language, English will be used for the purpose of
communication between the Union and the States. Admittedly, the State of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD).No.17006 of 2020
Tamil Nadu has not adopted Hindi as its official language, whereas it has
adopted two languages formally viz., Tamil and English. As per Proviso to
Section 1(a) of the Act, the Central Government is bound to use English for the
purpose of communication with the State of Tamil Nadu.
12.As per Article 345 of the Constitution of India, the State can use
languages of the State. Article 345, is extracted as follows:
“345. Official language or languages of a State.—Subject to the
provisions of articles 346 and 347, the Legislature of a State may
by law adopt any one or more of the languages in use in the State
or Hindi as the language or languages to be used for all or any of
the official purposes of that State: Provided that, until the
Legislature of the State otherwise provides by law, the English
language shall continue to be used for those official purposes
within the State for which it was being used immediately before
the commencement of this Constitution.”
The Government of Tamil Nadu passed the Official Languages Act, by which,
only two language formula is being adopted viz., Tamil and English.
Therefore, the Central Government is also expected to respect the sentiments of
the people. It would be appropriate and it is expected that the Central
Government gives its reply to the citizens, in their respective language as stated
in Article 350. If a representation is given as per Article 350 of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD).No.17006 of 2020
Constitution, reply should be given in the same language, so that, the people
could understand the information. This Court hopes that the Central
Government would seriously consider to amend Article 350, so that, not only
representation is given in the languages of the Union or the States, but also
reply is given in the same language used by the citizens.
13.Under Section 8 of the Official Languages Act, 1963, the Central
Government made "The Official Languages (use for Official Purpose of the
Union) Rules, 1976". Rule 1(ii) states that the Rules shall not be applicable to
the State of Tamil Nadu. The same is extracted as follows:
“ii.They shall extend to the whole of India, except the State of
Tamilnadu.”
The exception given to the State of Tamil Nadu would make it clear that the
Central Government shall use English for official purposes. To put it in other
words, the official language of India (Hindi) cannot be used for official
correspondence with the State of Tamil Nadu. When the Act of Parliament
states about the use of English language for official purpose of communication
between the Union and the States which have not adopted Hindi as their official
language, the Central Government is duty bound to follow the enactment.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD).No.17006 of 2020
14.In this case, admittedly, the Petitioner as a Member of Parliament in the
interest of candidates from Tamil Nadu on 09.10.2020 wrote a letter requesting
for examination centres at Chennai and Puducherry for recruitment of CRPF
Paramedical Staff Exam, 2020, as there was no centre notified. Though an
interim reply was given on 19.10.2020 by the Director General of Central
Reserve Police, New Delhi, subsequently, the first Respondent viz., Minister of
State for Home affairs, Government of India, North Block, sent a reply. A
perusal of the same shows that it is only in Hindi and only those who know
Hindi can understand the said communication, which is contrary to the
provisions of the Official Languages Act. The Petitioner protested and wrote a
letter to the first Respondent on 19.11.2020 quoting the provisions of the
Official Languages Act and the necessity to reply in English and asked the first
Respondent to respond to the letters of Members of Parliament from Tamil
Nadu in English. The relevant portion of the letter, dated 19.11.2020, is
extracted as follows:
“I give below the excerpts of the Section 5(x) of the original circular No.
11013/4/2011-Estt (A) dated 01.12.2011.
“Wherever any letter from a Parliament is in English and the reply
is required to be given in Hindi in terms of OL act 1963 and the rules
framed under, an English translation should also be sent along with the
reply for the convenience of such members from Non Hindi is speaking
areas”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD).No.17006 of 2020
Though it may not be applicable to Tamilnadu which is specifically
exempted from the purview of OL act, it makes mandatory to send translated
version in English to MPs belonging to Non Hindi speaking states if letter
from the MP concerned was in English.
Hence the reply sent by your ministry in Hindi without translated
version in English is violation of latest OM also which was necessitated due to
earlier violations of the same kind.
I strongly feel the solemn assurances given by the earlier Prime
ministers of this country are to be honoured by the present government also.
Yet it is disheartening to note that Government itself violates laws and
procedures repeatedly. Hence, I would request you to ensure honouring of
unique assurance given to TN and implementation of legal provisions in this
regard.
India is a country having rich legacy of preserving "Unity in diversity"
and such outlook has to be reflected in each and every action of the
government. That would strengthen integrity and federal structure of this
great country.
Hence I would request you to advise the officials of the ministry to
respond to the letters of MPs from Tamilnadu in English as per existing
practice.
Expecting your early response.”
15.Since the Petitioner's representation did not evoke any response, the
Petitioner approached this Court on 23.11.2020 seeking a Writ of Mandamus.
This Court ordered notice on 27.11.2020, when the matter came up for
admission. Thereafter, when the matter was called on 10.12.2020,
Mrs.L.Victoria Gowri, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India filed a copy
of letter, dated 09.11.2020, written by the first Respondent along with a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD).No.17006 of 2020
covering letter, dated 07.11.2020, in which, the first Respondent regretted for
not sending English version of the letter dated 09.11.2020. Though it is made
to believe that the mistake occurred inadvertently, it could not have been done
for the simple reason that the Petitioner sent his protest letter, dated 19.11.2020
and thereafter, filed the Writ Petition on 23.11.2020. Only after notice was
ordered by this Court on 27.11.2020, it seems that the first Respondent sent the
letter dated 07.11.2020. If really the mistake had inadvertently occurred,
immediately, on the Petitioner's representation, dated 19.11.2020, the first
Respondent ought to have sent a reply along with English version. This Court
is of the firm view that the first Respondent would not have sent the reply dated
07.11.2020 along with English version, if the notice was not ordered by this
Court. The regret letter dated 07.11.2020 has been belatedly given only to avoid
any adverse orders from this Court. Therefore, the reason given on 07.11.2020
by the first Respondent cannot be bonafide.
16.It is not only in this case, but there are many incidents, in which, the
officials of the Central Government are responding in Hindi alone. It is
available in public domain that information sought by the people of non Hindi
speaking States, especially, from Tamil Nadu, is given only in Hindi. It is also
stated that one bank official from Ariyalur District wrote to one of the parties
only in Hindi. Right to expression or freedom of speech is definitely enshrined
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD).No.17006 of 2020
in Article 19(1) of the Constitution of India. One could understand the
information and expression only in the known languages. In VIII Schedule,
there are 23 languages in India. When a right is given under Article 19 (1) of
the Constitution regarding freedom to write and freedom of expression, it is the
duty of the Central Government to use English. People from various States
would feel very happy, if the communications are given in their own language,
whereas the Central Government has confined only to English and Hindi.
17.The language issue is a very sensitive one and it should be approached
very sensibly. For example, in Tamil Nadu, it is a historical fact that when
Hindi was made as compulsory, protest erupted, leading to change of
Government in 1967. Till date, language issue continues to be an important
issue in Tamil Nadu. While dealing with Appeal against the dismissal of bail
petition under the NIA Act by the alleged accused, this Court while
condemning linguistic fanaticism, observed as follows:
“26.Any action of the Government, which is likely to create an apprehension
or give an impression that their language is discriminated or any other
language is given prominence, would amount to adding fuel to the mischievous
propaganda made by these secessionist forces. This Court is interested in
safeguarding the integrity and independence of this country which our
ancestors got by shedding their sweat and blood and laying down their
precious lives. At no cost, the integrity and security of the nation should be
jeopardized.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD).No.17006 of 2020
27.Our country is a multiracial, multicultural, multilingual and multi-
religious nation. Peace and Harmony have to be maintained. For that,
Governments should make every citizen to feel that his language, culture,
religion, race are preserved and protected and not interfered with or
suppressed by any action of the Governments. Even an apprehension should
not be created in the minds of the people which would be certainly counter
productive.
...
30...
Therefore, what is expected from the Governments is that,
(i) Not to create an impression in the minds of the people that their language is
being discriminated or suppressed;
(ii) Not to create any apprehension in the minds of the people that only a few
chosen languages are given prominence and recognition especially whenthere
are about 22 languages recognized and listed in the VIII Schedule of the
Constitution of India which are entitled to equal treatment and protection so
that all Indian languages are well-developed and preserved.
...”
The above observation would be equally applicable to this case. Even if an
inadvertent mistake is made regarding the use of language that will be a cause
for many issues in the society. Therefore, the Central Government is duty
bound to follow the provisions of the official languages Act.
18. Though English is not a very ancient language, it is considered to be
the World's language and language of science. Knowledge in English is like a
Passport and with good English knowledge, one can travel to any country for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD).No.17006 of 2020
work and settle. If that is the position, there is no point in discontinuing the use
of English. World has become a global village. Much water has flown under
the bridge, after the Constitution of India came into force in the year 1950.
Constitution framers would not have thought that English would become so
popular and they would have thought English could be used as a substitute and
the same could be replaced by Hindi. However, one can learn the language of
any of the countries in the World. Those who are working in foreign countries
know English. English knowledge is an asset to Indians. Therefore, English
can no way be dispensed with. However, it should not be taken that this Court
is only for English and not for the Indian languages.
19.As already observed, thrust is to be given to education in mother
tongue as that of English language. Knowledge in English is for economical
reasons. The knowledge of mother tongue is for expressing one's own
expressions in mother tongue. Without understanding anything in mother
tongue, one's knowledge will not be completed. The Central Government
should continue to use English along with Hindi which can act as a binding
force.
20. It is also settled position of law that whenever land acquisition
proceedings are initiated, as per the Act, 4(1) Notification should be issued in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD).No.17006 of 2020
dailies in vernacular languages and in English. The purpose of publication in
vernacular languages is only to see that the information regarding cases reaches
the local people, particularly, the land owners who are likely to be affected.
21.This is an era of communication and information. For information and
communication, language is important. A few languages of India are
thousands of years old and many are hundreds of years old. For preservation of
all languages and for development of the languages, efforts should be taken by
the Governments. One could understand the importance of language as the
States were reorganised based on languages. Article 350 of the Constitution, is
an important Article, with regard to the rights of the citizens to give
representations in the languages used in Union or in the States. Article 350 of
the Constitution, is reproduced as follows:
“350. Language to be used in representations for redress of grievances.—
Every person shall be entitled to submit a representation for the redress of
any grievance to any officer or authority of the Union or a State in any of the
languages used in the Union or in the State, as the case may be.”
From the above, it is clear that one is entitled to submit a representation to any
Agency or Officer of the Union or the States in any of the languages used in
India or in the States. Once a representation is given in English, it is the duty
of the Union Government to give a reply in English only which will also be in
consonance with the statute, viz., the Official Languages Act.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD).No.17006 of 2020
22.Though it has been stated that inadvertently, reply was given in Hindi,
the Respondents have not categorically stated that hereinafterwards, there will
not be any violation of the Official Languages Act, 1963 and the Official
Languages Rules, 1976. It is only stated that there is no intention to violate the
provisions of the Act and the Rules.
23.Taking into consideration the above facts and the provisions of the
Official Languages Act 1963 and the Official Languages Rules 1976, this Court
directs that the Union Government, other officers and instrumentalities shall
follow the provisions of official languages Act 1963, especially, Section 3 of
the Act and the Official Languages (Use for Official Purpose of the Union)
Rules, 1976.
With the above direction, this Writ Petition is allowed. No costs.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
(N.K.K.,J.) (M.D.,J.)
19.08.2021
sai
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD).No.17006 of 2020
To
1.Minister of State for Home Affairs,
Government of India,
North Block, New Delhi 110001.
2.The Joint Secretary,
Government of India,
Department of Official Language,
Ministry of Home Affairs,
NDCC-II Bhawan,
'B' Wing 4th Floor, Jain Singh Road,
New Delhi – 110001.
3.The Director General,
Central Reserve Police Force,
Level-IV, East Block-7,
R.K.Puram, New Delhi 110001.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD).No.17006 of 2020
N.KIRUBAKARAN, J.
and
M.DURAISWAMY, J.
sai
W.P.(MD).No.17006 of 2020
Dated:19.08.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
