The PIL was filed by one Rohit Patel seeking a directive to the State government to implement the authorisation granted by the Governor of the State to make Gujarati an additional language in court proceedings.
Senior Advocate Asim Pandya, appearing for the petitioner, pointed out that the State Legislative Assembly had passed a resolution to make Gujarati an additional language in courts.
“This resolution passed by the Assembly members was forwarded to the Governor through state council of ministers. Thus, it is a will of the people of the State and also of India,” Pandya pointed out.
Pandya argued that since India is a democratic country and since the authorisation was passed by the Governor within the framework of the Constitution of India, there is no role to be played by the Supreme Court or the High Court, even on administrative side.
Pandya batted for the use of “mother tongue,” and said that the bench need not consider the decision of the full court of the apex court, communicated to the High Court by a letter of written by then Chief Justice of India on December 16, 2012.
However, the High Court refused to entertain the plea and advised the petitioner to move the top court and challenge the full court decision of December 2012.
Source: Barandbench
