Legal Notes by Arvind Datar: English versus Hindi - which authoritative text or version prevails?

Article 348(1) requires the authoritative text of all bills to be introduced in Parliament or a state legislature to be in the English language. However, most states have their own Official Language Acts and have prescribed Hindi or the regional language to be used while introducing Bills in the State Legislatures.

This is permissible under Article 348(3), which further provides that a translation of all bills in the regional language must be published under the authority of the government in the official gazette of that state. It is this translation alone which will be deemed to be the authoritative text in the English language.

These two clauses have given rise to several conflicting decisions of the High Court on whether the English or the regional language text will prevail. As pointed out later in the article, conflicting views have arisen because most High Courts have treated “authoritative text” and “authoritative version” as the same. Article 348, however, does not refer to “authorised version”.

An examination of case law shows that most cases fall under two categories: firstly, where there is a doubt or ambiguity in the language used either in the English or Hindi/regional language text; secondly, where there is a direct conflict between what is stated in the English version and in the Hindi/ regional language text.

As regards doubt or ambiguity, the Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan High Courts have held that the translated English version under Article 348(3) will be the authoritative version. [Govindraj Ramprasad v. Assessing Authority (Sales Tax) (1958); Bhikam Chand v. State of Rajasthan (1966)].

The Uttarakhand High Court held that for Parliamentary legislation, the authoritative text in English will prevail over the Hindi translation, but the situation reverses in the state legislatures where a bill is introduced in the official language of the state and the discussion takes place on the basis of the text in Hindi or the regional language. In such a case, Hindi or the regional language will prevail, although the court can take aid of the English translation in the event of doubt [Rakiba v. State of Uttarakhand (2017)].

In a later decision, the Madhya Pradesh High Court took a contrary view and held that the Hindi version must prevail because the original legislation is in Hindi and made in the exercise of legislative power, whereas the translated English version is made in the exercise of executive power. [Chief Municipal Officer v. Hindustan Copper Ltd (2018)].

In the Allahabad High Court, this controversy was ultimately settled by a bench of seven judges, which held that if there is a doubt or ambiguity in the authorised English text, the corresponding Hindi text could be referred to for doubt or ambiguity. Mata Badal Pandey v. Board of Revenue (1974). Interestingly, the larger Bench referred to the decision in JK Jute Mills Company Limited v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1961), where it was held that both Hindi and English texts were “authorised versions” and, on the facts of that case, it was held that the English version did not reflect the true intention, while the Hindi version did. It is submitted that in cases of doubt or ambiguity in the Hindi version, the authorised text of the English can be referred to and vice-versa.

It is for the courts to resolve the doubt or ambiguity in a manner that effectuates the intention of the enactment. The cases of conflict are most difficult to resolve and reference can be made to three decisions. 

In Nityanand Sharma v. State of Bihar (1996), there was a controversy as to the particular tribe that was to be included in the list of Schedule Tribes. The Supreme Court held that, for Acts of Parliament, the English version would be the authoritative text. On facts as well, the particular tribe was correctly mentioned in the English version.

The Hindi version of a notification to acquire land mentioned the area as 0.3 acres while the English version mentioned 3 acres. The argument of the State government was that the Hindi version had a printing error and the English version was the “authoritative text” and would prevail.  However, the High Court quashed the notification on the ground that the Hindi version was vague and ineffective, and did not even furnish proper particulars of the land. Further, the Court observed that the English translation was also not under the authority of the Governor, but was issued by the Collector. The conflict was resolved by quashing the notification itself rather than deciding which version would prevail.

The decision of the Bombay High Court is interesting as well as instructive.  The Finance Bill, as introduced in the Lok Sabha, specified a rate of 12% as excise duty for cranes, while the Hindi version mentioned the duty as 15%.  The rate of 12% of the English version of the Bill was duly approved by the Lok Sabha. The Bombay High Court examined the factual details and found that 12% was actually a printing error, but was rectified after the Bill had been passed by the Lok Sabha. The Lok Sabha Rules provided a procedure to correct such errors with the permission of the Speaker, but this procedure had not been followed. Interestingly, the English version was corrected, although without following the prescribed procedure, and the Presidential assent to the corrected version showed 15% duty in the English and Hindi texts. The High Court held that there was a clear error in the English version, which had been corrected.  Even if the procedure had not been followed, it was a mere irregularity and it could not be questioned under Article 122.

Thus, if there is an irreconcilable conflict, it will be necessary for the High Courts or the Supreme Court to call for the records, require the government to file an affidavit explaining the reasons for the two conflicting versions and eventually decide which authoritative text is the correct one.

It is submitted that many High Courts have fallen into an error of treating the expression “authoritative text” as used in the Constitution to mean “authoritative version”. Article 348(1) states that a bill, as introduced in English in Parliament, will be treated as the “authoritative text” in the English language. For Hindi and regional languages, it is the translation under the authority of the government and as published in the official gazette, which will be the “authoritative text” under Article 348(3). This only means that all other translations are not authoritative.

Thus, bills in both English and Hindi/regional languages which follow the procedure under Article 348(1) and 348(3) are “authoritative text”; there is no “authoritative version”. Once this distinction is noted, it will be easy to resolve any doubt, ambiguity or conflict between the English authoritative text and the corresponding one in the regional language.

Arvind P Datar is a Senior Advocate.