A common language for justice

1. At a Glance

• Core issue: India's constitutional courts work in English, but most litigants do not read it. The question is whether to replace English with Hindi or to make court output available in many Indian languages. [1][2]
• Constitutional anchor: Article 348(1)(a) requires all proceedings in the Supreme Court and every High Court to be in English. Article 348(2) allows limited Hindi or State-language use in High Courts. [2][3]
• Current approach: The Supreme Court is not changing its official language. It is extending access through AI-assisted translation (SUVAS), translated judgments on the e-SCR portal, and Hindi summaries of its reports. [1][4][5]
• UPSC relevance: The topic joins Official Language (Part XVII), access to justice (Art. 39A spirit), judicial reforms, federalism and linguistic diversity, and AI in governance.

2. Why in the News

• On 25 September 2026, a PIL in the Supreme Court sought a direction to the Union to set up a commission to recommend Hindi as the official language of the Supreme Court. [1]
• The Bench was CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana. It observed that language reforms were already under way in phases through administrative measures. [1]
• Justice V. Mohana said the relief sought would require a constitutional amendment. [1]
• The CJI said the Court already publishes brief descriptions of its reports in Hindi, and that this will be gradually extended to other regional languages to protect linguistic diversity. [1]
• The trigger was an op-ed, "A common language for justice" (The Hindu, 13 Oct 2026, p. 11). It argues for adding more Indian languages, not replacing one language with another. [1]

3. Background & Evolution

• Constitutional design: Article 348(1)(a) makes English the language of SC and HC proceedings. Article 348(2) lets a Governor, with the President's prior consent, authorise Hindi or the State's official language in proceedings of that State's High Court. [2][3]
• Statutory add-on: Section 7 of the Official Languages Act extends this to HC judgments, decrees and orders. Any judgment in Hindi or a State language must carry an English translation issued under the High Court's authority. [2][3]
• Milestones (Hindi in High Courts):
• 1950 — Rajasthan High Court (the first) [3]
• 1969 — Uttar Pradesh (Allahabad HC) [3]
• 1971 — Madhya Pradesh [3]

• 1972 — Bihar (Patna HC) [3]

• 1965 Cabinet Committee decision: any proposal to use a language other than English in a High Court needs the consent of the Chief Justice of India. [3]

• Technology phase: SUVAS (Supreme Court Vidhik Anuvaad Software) was built with technical support from MeitY. It started with 10 vernacular languages for translating English judicial documents. [4]
• The CJI set up an AI Assisted Legal Translation Advisory Committee headed by Justice Abhay S. Oka. [2][5]
• 2024 onward: the Court announced use of AI for summaries of pleadings (then Acting CJ Manmohan, Sept 2024). [6]
• 2026: SUVAS covers SC judgments in 18 Indian languages, and final validation remains human-led. [5]

4. Core Static Facts

Item	Fact
Language of SC and HC proceedings	English, under Art. 348(1)(a) [2][3]
Exception route (HCs only)	Art. 348(2): Governor plus prior consent of the President [2][3]
HC judgments in a non-English language	Allowed under Sec. 7, Official Languages Act, with an English translation attached [2][3]
Executive safeguard	1965 Cabinet Committee decision requires CJI's consent [3]
States with Hindi in their HC	Rajasthan (1950), UP (1969), MP (1971), Bihar (1972) [3]
SC translation tool	SUVAS, an AI-trained machine-assisted translation tool built with MeitY support [4]
SUVAS languages	10 at launch, later 18 Indian languages [4][5]
Translated output (as of 5 Aug 2024)	36,271 SC judgments in Hindi; 17,142 in 16 other regional languages [2]
Hosting portal	e-SCR (electronic Supreme Court Reports) [2][5]
Oversight body	AI Assisted Legal Translation Advisory Committee, chaired by Justice Abhay S. Oka [2][5]
Changing the SC's language	Would need a constitutional amendment (per the Bench, Sept 2026) [1]

5. Multi-Dimensional Analysis

Legal / Constitutional

• Art. 348 fixes English for the SC with no Art. 348(2)-type exception. A judicial order cannot make Hindi the SC's language. This is why the Bench pointed to the need for an amendment. [1][2]
• The HC route is dual-key: Governor plus President under Art. 348(2), and in practice also the CJI under the 1965 decision. That makes it executive-plus-judiciary controlled, not a decision a State can take alone. [3]
• Sec. 7 of the Official Languages Act keeps English as the authoritative fallback through mandatory English translations. [2][3]

Social / Access to Justice

• Litigants are rarely English-proficient. Judgments they cannot read weaken legal literacy and the right to know. [1]
• Making Hindi the only alternative could alienate non-Hindi States. The op-ed's case is multilingual access over substitution. [1]

Federal / Political (Linguistic diversity)

• The CJI framed the Hindi summaries as a step to be extended to regional languages, a deliberate sign of linguistic neutrality. [1]
• Only 4 States have Hindi in their High Courts. Requests from other States, such as for Tamil, have historically depended on the CJI-consent requirement. [3]

Scientific / Technological

• SUVAS is AI-assisted neural translation. The model is human-in-the-loop, with final validation done by people. [4][5]
• The Court has extended AI to summarising pleadings, which reduces the reading load across languages. [6]

Administrative / Governance

• The chosen route is phased administrative reform (translation, summaries, e-SCR) rather than constitutional change. It is cheaper, reversible and consensus-friendly. [1][5]
• Bottlenecks include translation backlogs, legal-terminology accuracy, and the fact that only the English version is authoritative.

6. Recent Developments (last 12–18 months)

• Feb 2026: a PIB explainer, "From Digitisation to Intelligence", records SUVAS translating SC judgments into 18 Indian languages with human-led final validation. [5]
• 25 Sep 2026: a PIL seeking a commission for Hindi as the SC's official language was heard. The Bench (CJI Surya Kant, Bagchi J., Mohana J.) cited the ongoing phased reforms. [1]
• Sep 2026: the CJI confirmed that brief Hindi descriptions of SC reports are published and will be extended to other regional languages. [1]
• 13 Oct 2026: The Hindu op-ed "A common language for justice" argues for expanding access across Indian languages. [1]

7. Prelims Hooks

• Art. 348(1)(a): proceedings in the SC and every HC are in English. [2]
• Art. 348(2): the Governor, with the President's prior consent, may authorise Hindi or a State official language in HC proceedings. [2][3]
• Sec. 7, Official Languages Act covers HC judgments in Hindi or a State language, which must be accompanied by an English translation. [2]
• The first HC to use Hindi was Rajasthan, 1950. [3]
• The other Hindi-using HCs are UP (1969), MP (1971) and Bihar (1972). [3]
• The 1965 Cabinet Committee decision requires the CJI's consent for a non-English language in an HC. [3]
• SUVAS is the Supreme Court's AI translation tool, built with MeitY technical support. [4]
• SUVAS launched with 10 languages and now covers 18 Indian languages. [4][5]
• As of 5 Aug 2024: 36,271 SC judgments translated into Hindi and 17,142 into 16 other regional languages. [2]
• Translated SC judgments are hosted on e-SCR. [2]
• The AI Assisted Legal Translation Advisory Committee is headed by Justice Abhay S. Oka. [2][5]
• In Sep 2026, the SC Bench said that making Hindi the SC's language would require a constitutional amendment. [1]

8. Hindi for the Supreme Court Has Been Turned Down Before

• The Law Commission looked at this in 2008 and said no
• Its 216th Report has a plain title: Non-Feasibility of Introduction of Hindi as Compulsory Language in the Supreme Court of India (2008) [7].
• Non-feasibility means it cannot practically be done.
• It advised that the higher judiciary should not face any change in its language, "even persuasive" change, in present social conditions [8].

• The Department of Official Language accepted that advice [8].

• The Supreme Court's own judges said no to State languages in High Courts

• Several States asked to use their own language in High Court proceedings.

• The Full Court (a meeting of all Supreme Court judges) discussed it and did not accept these proposals [9].

• Why this matters for the 2026 PIL

• The PIL asked for a new commission to recommend Hindi [1].
• But a commission has already studied the question. The Union accepted its 'no'.
• So when the Bench said Hindi would need a constitutional amendment, it was following a settled position, not just using a technical excuse [1][7][8].

9. The Strongest Case for Hindi, and Where It Falls Short

• The case for Hindi, put at its best
• English is a foreign language for almost every litigant. Hindi is at least an Indian language, spoken widely.
• Four High Courts have allowed Hindi for decades: Rajasthan since 1950, and UP, MP and Bihar since 1969–72. The system kept working [3].

• So, the argument goes, one Indian language at the top is better than a colonial one.

• What is right about it

• The problem it points to is real. A litigant who cannot read the judgment in their own case cannot fully use their rights [1].

• The four Hindi-using High Courts show that a court can work in an Indian language.

• Why it still fails at the Supreme Court

• The Supreme Court hears appeals from every State. A High Court serves one State.
• Under Article 141, Supreme Court law binds every court in India. A Hindi-only Supreme Court would bind a Tamil or Malayalam litigant in a language they read no better than English.
• So the unfairness would not end. It would shift from Hindi speakers to non-Hindi speakers. That is why the op-ed argues for adding languages, not swapping one for another [1].
• Even the four Hindi-using High Courts must still attach an English translation to their judgments (Sec. 7, Official Languages Act). English stays the common link [2].

10. Even the Multilingual Route Leans Towards Hindi

• Hindi has more translations than all other languages put together
• By 5 Aug 2024: 36,271 judgments were translated into Hindi [2].
• Only 17,142 were translated across 16 other languages combined [2].

• That works out to about 1,070 per language on average. Hindi has roughly 34 times that.

• Why it matters

• The Court says regional languages will come in step by step [1]. But the numbers show the steps are uneven.
• The same is true of the new Hindi summaries of SC reports. They started in Hindi, and other languages are only promised for later [1].
• If this gap stays, the 'many languages' policy will look like the 'Hindi first' policy it was meant to avoid. Non-Hindi States already worry about exactly that.

11. A Translated Judgment Is Not the Same as Justice in Your Language

• The translation is only for reading. It has no legal force
• Only the English text counts in law. Sec. 7 of the Official Languages Act keeps English as the final version, even for High Courts [2].

• If the Tamil translation and the English original disagree, the English one wins. A litigant who relies on the translation does so at their own risk.

• Translation comes after the case is decided

• SUVAS translates judgments, which come at the end of a case [4].
• The hearing, the arguments and the court papers are all still in English under Art. 348(1)(a) [2].

• So the litigant still cannot follow their own case while it is going on. They can only read the result later.

• A machine can get legal words wrong

• Legal words have exact meanings. For example, 'acquittal' (being declared not guilty) and 'discharge' (being let go before trial) are very different, but they can sound alike in translation.
• This is why final checking of SUVAS output is still done by humans [5].
• Human checking is slow. That limits how fast translations can grow, and helps explain the backlog.

12. What Each Actor Should Do Next

• Parliament and the Union: do not amend Art. 348 to make Hindi the Supreme Court's language
• The Law Commission's 216th Report (2008) advised against it, and the Union accepted that [7][8].

• A fresh push would reopen a question already settled, and anger non-Hindi States.

• The Oka Committee: publish translation numbers by language and set targets for the weaker ones

• The AI Assisted Legal Translation Advisory Committee under Justice Abhay S. Oka oversees translation [5].
• Hindi has far more translations than all other languages together [2].

• Yearly figures for each language would show whether the CJI's promise to extend summaries to regional languages is being kept [1].

• The Supreme Court: give a translated judgment some official standing

• Today only the English text counts [2].

• A certified translation, checked by the human reviewers SUVAS already uses [5], could at least be relied on by the litigant in their own case.

• The Supreme Court's Full Court: reconsider State requests case by case

• Art. 348(2) already lets High Courts use State languages. A constitutional amendment is not needed for this [3].
• The blanket refusal [9] blocks a route that the Constitution itself opened.
• Allowing proceedings in Tamil or Bengali in a High Court is fully within the existing law, as long as an English translation is attached (Sec. 7) [2].

13. Anchors for Answers

• Data: 36,271 SC judgments translated into Hindi vs 17,142 across 16 other languages combined (as of 5 Aug 2024). This shows the Hindi tilt even inside the multilingual effort [2]
• Data: SUVAS grew from 10 to 18 Indian languages, with final checking done by humans [4][5]
• Report/Committee: Law Commission 216th Report, Non-Feasibility of Introduction of Hindi as Compulsory Language in the Supreme Court (2008). The Department of Official Language accepted it [7][8]
• Report/Committee: AI Assisted Legal Translation Advisory Committee, chaired by Justice Abhay S. Oka [5]
• Report/Committee: The Supreme Court Full Court declined State proposals for regional languages in High Courts [9]
• Law/Case: Art. 348(1)(a) and 348(2); Sec. 7, Official Languages Act 1963; Art. 141 (SC law binds all courts, which is why the SC's language affects every State) [2][3]
• Scheme: SUVAS and e-SCR translate SC judgments and host them free online for litigants [4][2]

14. Mains Relevance

• GS-II: Structure, organisation and functioning of the Judiciary; Indian Constitution (significant provisions, Part XVII); Government policies and interventions; issues in federal structure.
• GS-III: Science and technology (AI applications in governance).
• GS-IV: Accessibility and citizen-centric justice; probity in governance.
• Possible question stems: 1. "Access to justice is incomplete if justice is delivered in a language the litigant cannot understand." Examine the constitutional framework governing the language of higher courts in India, and the case for multilingual access over linguistic substitution. 2. Discuss the role of AI-assisted translation (e.g., SUVAS) in democratising judicial outcomes. What safeguards are needed to keep legal translations accurate and authoritative? 3. Should Article 348 be amended to allow regional languages in High Courts without Union consent? Critically analyse this in light of federalism and judicial uniformity.

15. Related Topics to Study Next

• Part XVII (Arts. 343–351), Official Language: the full constitutional framework around Art. 348.
• Official Languages Act, 1963: Section 7 and the continued use of English. [2]
• Eighth Schedule languages: the pool of languages relevant to translation.
• e-Courts Mission Mode Project (Phase III): the digital infrastructure behind e-SCR and translation.
• Article 39A and NALSA: free legal aid as a parallel access-to-justice tool.
• AI in governance (IndiaAI Mission, Bhashini): the language-AI ecosystem linked to MeitY. [4]
• Three-language formula / NEP 2020: the wider language-politics debate.
• Constitutional amendment procedure (Art. 368): needed for any change to the SC's language. [1]

16. NCERT Concepts to Revise

• Official Languages Act 1963 (Polity): Section 7 of this Act allows non-English High Court judgments with an English translation; it keeps English in official use.
• High Court (Polity): Article 348(2) lets High Courts, unlike the Supreme Court, use Hindi or State languages, so their structure matters.
• Eighth Schedule (Polity): It lists the 22 recognised languages, the pool from which translation languages are drawn.
• Free legal aid (Polity): Article 39A free legal aid is the parallel access-to-justice idea behind making judgments understandable to litigants.
• Three-language formula (Polity): It shows the wider Hindi versus regional language politics behind objections to making Hindi the Supreme Court's language.
• Governor (Polity): Under Article 348(2) the Governor, with the President's consent, authorises Hindi or a State language in a High Court.

17. Common Errors / Trap Areas

• Art. 348(2) does not apply to the Supreme Court. It covers High Courts only. The SC has no comparable exception. [2][3]
• The Governor alone cannot authorise it. The President's prior consent is mandatory under the Article, and the 1965 Cabinet decision adds CJI consent. [3]
• Hindi HC judgments still need an English translation under Sec. 7 of the Official Languages Act. [2]
• SUVAS language counts differ by date: 10 at launch and 18 by 2026. Read the question's timeframe. The 2024 data refers to Hindi plus 16 regional languages. [2][4][5]
• SUVAS uses MeitY technical support, not the Ministry of Law. Translation oversight sits with the Oka Committee, which is judicial. [4][5]