Articles 348 and 349 form part of Part XVII of the Constitution and deal with the language used in the Supreme Court, High Courts and authoritative legal texts, together with a special transitional procedure concerning laws on language.
Article 348 begins with a non-obstante clause and operates notwithstanding the preceding provisions of Part XVII. Until Parliament provides otherwise by law, clause (1) requires English for proceedings in the Supreme Court and every High Court and for the authoritative texts of specified Bills, amendments, Acts, Ordinances, orders, rules, regulations and bye-laws.
In substance, Article 348(1) provides that, until Parliament by law otherwise provides:
(a) proceedings in the Supreme Court and every High Court shall be in English; and
(b) English shall be used for the authoritative texts of Bills and amendments introduced or moved in Parliament or a State Legislature, Acts of Parliament and State Legislatures, Ordinances, and orders, rules, regulations and bye-laws issued under the Constitution or under laws made by Parliament or a State Legislature.
The Governor of a State may, with the previous consent of the President, authorise Hindi or another language used for official purposes of the State in proceedings before the High Court having its principal seat in that State. The constitutional proviso states that this clause does not itself apply to a judgment, decree or order of that High Court.
If a State Legislature prescribes a language other than English for Bills, State Acts, Ordinances or specified subordinate legislation, an English translation published under the authority of the Governor in the Official Gazette is deemed to be the authoritative English text for Article 348.
Article 349 was framed as a transitional constitutional safeguard. During the period of fifteen years from the commencement of the Constitution, a Bill or amendment dealing with the language used for a purpose mentioned in Article 348(1) could not be introduced or moved in either House of Parliament without the President's previous sanction.
For that period, the President was required, before granting sanction, to consider the recommendations of the Official Language Commission constituted under Article 344(1) and the report of the parliamentary committee constituted under Article 344(4). Because the fifteen-year period has expired, Article 349 is principally of historical and interpretive significance today.
Parliament subsequently enacted the Official Languages Act, 1963. Section 7 is particularly relevant to High Court judgments, decrees and orders. It permits the Governor of a State, with the previous consent of the President, to authorise Hindi or the official language of the State, in addition to English, for such judgments, decrees or orders. Where a judgment, decree or order is issued in a language other than English under this provision, it must be accompanied by an English translation issued under the authority of the High Court.
Section 6 also addresses authorised Hindi translations of State Acts and Ordinances in specified circumstances, alongside the English translation required by Article 348(3).
For the Supreme Court, English remains the language of proceedings. For High Courts, Article 348(2) allows authorised use of Hindi or another State official language in proceedings when the constitutional conditions are satisfied, while the Official Languages Act, 1963 provides the statutory framework for authorised non-English High Court judgments, decrees and orders with an accompanying English translation.
The provisions also distinguish between the language in which a legislature may conduct its work and the language of an authoritative legal text. Article 348(3) ensures that, where a State uses another prescribed language for specified legislative material, an officially published English translation serves as the authoritative English text.