State must enact laws in English; will not cause any harm to regional languages: Kerala High Court

Laws and rules of the State must be published in the English language and English translations of the law must be made available if the law is enacted in a regional language, the Kerala High Court recently said [PH Babu Ansari & Anr. v. The Municipal Corporation]..Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas noted that this was also required under the Constitution of India, and opined that the enactment of laws in English would not harm the growth of regional languages."Enacting laws in English as mandated by the Constitution in a diverse country like India, will not have any bearing on the growth of the regional language. On the other hand, it can enhance the growth potential of the State as an investment destination with better awareness about its laws,” the judge said..The enactment of laws in English could attract more investments since such laws would be more understandable to a wider audience especially when the State is inviting global investments, the Court explained. “The need for publishing statutes and rules in English language need not be reiterated. When a State like Kerala opens its invitation for people from all over the world to invest, it would be incongruous if the laws were incomprehensible to them. The importance of English as an international language of communication and comprehension within and outside the Country cannot be ignored. Parochial considerations have to be kept aside while contemplating growth and development of the State," the Court said. .Justice Thomas proceeded to urge the State government to abide by its constitutional duty to provide legal texts in English. Otherwise, the Court would be compelled to issue directions on the issue, the judge warned. “This Court reminds the State Government to abide by the Constitutional obligation to prepare the texts of all Statutes, Rules, and other enactments in English, lest this Court be compelled to issue appropriate directions in that regard,” the November 24 judgment read. .The High Court made these observations while considering a plea to remove a certain plot of property from the 'park and open space' category in the Kottayam Structural Plan/Master Plan. .The property owners (petitioners) who filed the plea also sought the approval of their building permit applications and permission to construct buildings without adhering to the Master Plan's restrictions.The petitioners claimed that the municipal authority had neglected to formally acquire the plot within the two years stipulated under the law, despite the petitioners issuing purchase notices indicating that they would be buying the said plot. .The municipal authorities replied that the property was zoned for a 'park and open space,' and that the petitioners did not have any permission yet to construct buildings on the said plot.The authorities also argued that the purchase notice sent by the petitioners was not in the format prescribed under the relevant State rules. .The High Court, however, granted the property owners relief on finding that there was no specific format prescribed in the Kerala Town and Country Planning Act, 2016, or its rules when it came to purchase notices. Pertinently, the Court observed that the rules under the 2016 Act were available only in Malayalam. This prompted the Court to take note of the larger issue of State rules not being available in English. “The legislature and the rule making authority are bound to issue an English translation, simultaneous with the introduction and passing of the law and the Rules. The requirement of an English text is a Constitutional obligation and cannot be avoided," the Court emphasised. .The Court proceeded to allow the property owners' plea and directed the authorities to process their building permit applications. The Court reasoned that the authorities ought to have acquired the plot within two years after marking it as a "park and open space" if they wanted to take control of the plot. The Court also noted that in the absence of any prescribed form, the property owners had issued a purchase notice that conveyed its intent and purpose. The failure of the State to prescribe the format of such a notice cannot hinder a property owner's rights, the Court said. .The petitioners were represented by Senior Advocates VV Asokan along with advocates KI Mayankutty Mather, T Sreekala, and S Parvathi.The municipal authorities were represented by Senior Government Pleader K Amminikutty and Standing Counsel CS Manilal..[Read Judgment]