Can a Vernacular Statute Be Treated as the Authoritative Text in High Courts?

The question of whether statutes enacted or published in vernacular languages can be treated as authoritative texts in High Courts raises significant constitutional and jurisprudential concerns. In a multilingual country like India, the balance between promoting regional languages and maintaining uniformity in judicial proceedings has long been debated. The Constitution of India, particularly Article 348, provides guidance on this issue, establishing English as the authoritative language for laws and proceedings in High Courts and the Supreme Court, unless Parliament provides otherwise.

Recently, the Kerala High Court in Dr. Vinodkumar Jacob v. Vice Chancellor, APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University & Connected Case (W.P (C) Nos. 3197 & 5548 of 2025) dealt with this very question in the context of the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University First Statutes, 2020, which were published only in Malayalam. The Court was asked to decide whether such vernacular statutes could be relied upon in judicial proceedings without an officially published English translation.

This article examines the constitutional framework, judicial pronouncements, and the Kerala High Court’s ruling, alongside broader implications for legislative drafting, constitutional mandates, and access to justice.

Constitutional Framework: Language of Courts and Authoritative Texts

Article 348 of the Constitution

Article 348 lays down the language to be used in the Supreme Court, High Courts, and for authoritative texts of laws:

Article 348(1)(a) – All proceedings in the Supreme Court and High Courts shall be in English.

Article 348(1)(b) – The authoritative text of all Bills, Acts, Ordinances, and subordinate legislation must be in English.

Article 348(2) – The Governor of a State, with Presidential consent, may authorise the use of Hindi or other official State languages in High Court proceedings, though judgments and orders must still be in English.

Article 348(3) – If a State Legislature prescribes a language other than English for Bills, Acts, or subordinate legislation, a translation in English published under the Governor’s authority in the Official Gazette shall be deemed to be the authoritative text.

Thus, while vernacular enactments may be valid within the legislative domain, the authoritative version in the High Courts remains English.

Facts of the Case

The dispute arose out of the functioning of the Syndicate of APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University.

• A meeting of the Syndicate was convened by the Vice Chancellor, but was abruptly called off before any business could be transacted.
• Several members objected to this and continued the meeting in the absence of the Vice Chancellor, electing another member to preside. They passed resolutions on pending matters, including disciplinary proceedings and reappointments.
• The Vice Chancellor, however, annulled these decisions, claiming that the meeting was not validly held.
• Members of the Syndicate challenged this annulment before the Kerala High Court, contending that under the University’s First Statutes (2020), they were empowered to proceed with the meeting in the Vice Chancellor’s absence.
• The complication was that the First Statutes were published only in Malayalam, without an official English translation as required under Article 348(3) of the Constitution.
• The Court was thus called upon to decide, among other issues, whether a statute in the vernacular alone could be relied upon in High Court proceedings.

Judicial Precedents on Vernacular and Authoritative Texts

The Supreme Court and various High Courts have clarified the role of vernacular laws and translations.

1. Prabhat Kumar Sharma v. UPSC (2006) 10 SCC 587 – The Court held that in case of conflict between the English and Hindi versions of a statute, the English version prevails as the authoritative text under Article 348(1)(b)
2. Nityanand Sharma v. State of Bihar (1996) 3 SCC 576 – A mistranslation of a Scheduled Tribe’s name in Hindi confused caste recognition. The Supreme Court clarified that the English text is binding as the authoritative version.
3. Thanga Dorai v. Chancellor, Kerala University (1995 KHC 369) – The Kerala High Court held that simultaneous English translations must be published when laws are enacted in regional languages, as mandated by Article 348(3).
4. Murali Purushothaman v. State of Kerala (2001 SCC OnLine Ker 545) – A Division Bench reiterated that English translations are a constitutional obligation, and failure to publish them undermines Article 348.
5. P.H. Babu Ansari v. Municipal Council, Kottayam (2023 (6) KLT 523) – The Court criticised the continuing neglect of constitutional mandates by legislatures and governments that failed to provide authoritative English translations.
6. Patna High Court decisions (Mathura Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar, 1975 SCC OnLine Pat 88; Shree Alok Kumar Agrawal v. State, 1976 KHC 2451) – Held that although failure to publish an English translation does not render a law “non est” (invalid), it leaves the judiciary without an authoritative text, creating serious interpretive difficulties.

Kerala High Court’s 2025 Decision

In Dr. Vinodkumar Jacob v. Vice Chancellor, APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University (W.P (C) Nos. 3197 & 5548 of 2025), the Kerala High Court was faced with disputes involving the University Syndicate, where reliance was placed on the First Statutes of 2020, published only in Malayalam.

Issues Framed

Among others, the Court framed the following key issue:

• Whether the First Statutes of the University, published only in Malayalam, could be relied upon as authoritative in the High Court without an English translation as mandated by Article 348(3)?

Court’s Observations

1. Constitutional Mandate Ignored – The Court noted that despite repeated reminders in earlier judgments (Thanga Dorai, Murali Purushothaman, Babu Ansari), the State of Kerala had failed to publish English translations.
2. No Authoritative Text Available – The Court held that under Article 348(3), the authoritative text for use in High Courts must be the English version published in the Official Gazette under the Governor’s authority. In the absence of such a version, the vernacular statute cannot be treated as authoritative
3. Not Invalid, But Non-Authoritative – Importantly, the Court clarified that the absence of an English translation does not render the statute invalid; it remains enforceable. However, in judicial proceedings before High Courts, the vernacular cannot be treated as the authoritative text.
4. Global Relevance of English – The Court emphasised that in an era where States like Kerala aspire to become global education hubs, it is incongruous to have higher education statutes available only in Malayalam. Students and institutions from across India and the world must have access to English versions of laws.
5. Judicial Constraint – Although the Court expressed frustration at repeated neglect of constitutional obligations, it refrained from striking down the vernacular statute, instead reiterating the constitutional mandate for future compliance.

Analysis of the Decision

Kerala High Court’s ruling brings clarity to the constitutional position on vernacular statutes.

1. Validity v. Authoritativeness

• Vernacular laws are valid if enacted properly.
• However, authoritativeness in High Court proceedings is reserved for English texts. Thus, parties and judges cannot rely solely on vernacular versions in litigation.

2. Practical Challenges

• Delays or absence of translations hinder judicial functioning.
• Lawyers and judges relying on unofficial translations risk inconsistencies and misinterpretations.

3. Balancing Regional Pride and Constitutional Mandates

• Regional languages play an important role in legislative and administrative accessibility.
• Yet, for uniformity in interpretation and national integration of laws, English remains indispensable.

4. Implications for Universities and Global Institutions

• Universities governed by vernacular statutes (like APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University) may deter international students and faculty if official texts are not accessible in English.
• This affects transparency, governance, and India’s global educational ambitions.

Key Highlights of the Decision

Justice T.R. Ravi. stated: 

In cases where the Legislature of the State has prescribed any language other than English Language for use in Bills etc., a translation of the same in the English Language published under the authority of the Governor, in the Official Gazette of that State is deemed to be the authoritative text thereof in the English Language. As per Section 2 of the Kerala Official Languages Act, 1969, the language to be used in Bills to be introduced or amendment thereto to be moved in the Legislative Assembly of the State of Kerala, Acts passed by the Legislature of the State of Kerala Ordinances promulgated by the Governor under Article 213 of the Constitution; and orders, rules, regulations and bye-laws issued by the Government under the Constitution or under any law made by Parliament or the Legislature of the State of Kerala shall be Malayalam or English.

Thus, Kerala has adopted both Malayalam and English. However, as far as the High Court is concerned, going by the requirement of Article 348(3), the authoritative text is the one in English Language, either as the original text of the legal document or as a translation published with the authority of the Governor and published in the Official Gazette. 

Conclusion

Kerala High Court’s decision in W.P (C) Nos. 3197 & 5548 of 2025 reaffirms that vernacular statutes, though valid, cannot be treated as authoritative texts in High Courts. Article 348 of the Constitution makes English the binding language for authoritative legal texts and judicial proceedings.

While regional languages remain vital for accessibility and local governance, their primacy cannot extend into High Court proceedings without English translations published under constitutional authority. The case underscores the urgent need for legislatures to comply with constitutional mandates, ensuring simultaneous publication of English texts to facilitate clarity, accessibility, and global compatibility of Indian law.

The message is clear: in a constitutional democracy that values both linguistic diversity and judicial uniformity, vernacular statutes may speak to the people, but only English speaks to the High Courts.

Important Link

Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary, and Entrance Exams