Supreme Court of India
Madhu Limaye and Anr. v. Ved Murti & Ors.
| Decided | 10-09-1970 |
|---|---|
| Bench | M. Hidayatullah, J.M. Shelat, Vishishtha Bhargava, G.K. Mitter, C.A. Vaidyialingam, A.N. Ray, I.D. Dua |
| Case type | Writ Petition |
| Subject | Constitutional Law |
| CNR | ESCR010001151971 |
Judgment
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition No. 307 of 1970. Petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India for a writ in the nature of habeas corpus. Petitioner No. 1 appeared in person. K. Rajendra Chaudhuri and Pratap Singh, for petitioner No. 2. C. D. Daphtary, L. M. Singhvi and 0. P. Rana, for the respondents. Niren De, /fttorney-General, R. H. Dhebar, H. R. Khanna, S. P. Nayar and R. N. Sachthey, for Attorney-Gene1a! and Ul!l!ion of India. S. C. Agarwal, D. P. Singh and Raj Narain (in person), for the intervener. ORDER Mr. Raj Narain yesterday insisted on arguing in Hindi. He was heard for sometime with a view to see whether we could f~llow him, si~~ly because this is a habeas petition involving the liberty of the c1tmm. Because of the importance of the case we heard him for sometime, but the Attorney-General, Mr. Daphtary who is opposing him and some of the members ot. the Bench could n?t unde!Jitand the :u~ents made in Hindi yesterday.
In these circumstances, it is futtle to permit Mr. Raj Narain to continue his [1971 J 2 s.c.R.' argumemlts in Hindi. He has a counsel Mr. D. P. Singh already in attendance and helping him. We suggested the following three alternatives, (a) that he may argue in English; or (b) he may ·allow his counsel to preSQll( his case; or ( c) he may give his written arguments in English. The language of ws Court is English (see Art. 348 of the Constitution). If Mr. Raj Narain is not agreeable to these sugges. tions, and we understand, he is not, the only alternative for us is to ca.nee! his intervention. We order accordingly. G.C.