MEMORANDUM OF GROUNDS OF WRIT APPEAL (UNDER CLAUSE 15 0F LETTERS PATENT) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE MADRAS MADURAI BENCH

(Special Original Jurisdiction) W.A. No. - In W.P. (MD) No.10992 of 2013 (On the file of the High Court of Judicature Madras at Madurai Bench) AyishaBanu, W/o. Thiru. BakeerMaideen, No. 59/81, MohameedSalihapuram, Pallivasal 1st Street, 13 Ward, Kovilpatti 628501, Thoothukudi District. ... - Vs 1. Ministry of Overseas Indian Affairs, Through its Secretary, Akbar Bhawan, Chanakyapuri, New Delhi 21. 2. The Protector General of Emigrants, Ministry of Overseas Indian Affairs, 9th floor, Akbar Bhawan, Chanakyapuri, New Delhi -21. 3.The principal Secretary and Commissioner, Commissionerate of Rehabilitation and Welfare of Non-Resident Tamils, Chepauk, Chennai 5. 4. The District Collector, Collectrate, Thoothukudi Dist, Korampallam, Thoothukudi. of 2013

Appellant / Petitioner

...

Respondents / Respondents

MEMORANDUM OF GROUNDS OF WRIT APPEAL

The address for service of all processes and notices to the appellant is that of his counsels M/s. V. Rajiv Rufus, M. Maran, N.Sobanabai, at 2/274, Thilahar Street, KurinchiNagar,

Narayanapuram, Madurai-14. The address for service of all processes and notices to the Respondents is as stated above. The above named appellant prefers this memorandum of grounds of writ appeal against the order passed by Honble Mr. Justice Manikumar made in W.P. (MD) No.10992 of 2013 dated 10.07.2013 for the following among other. GROUNDS a. That the Honble Single Judge failed to consider the merit and urgency of the case though it is warranting immediate direction from the court in consideration of the fact and circumstance of the case. b. It is submitted that as it is mentioned in Article 348(2) of the Constitution of India, which reads as follows, notwithstanding anything in sub-clause (a) of clause (1), the Governor of a State may, with the previous consent of the President, authorise the use of the Hindi language, or any other language used for any official purposes of the State, in proceedings in the High Court having its principal seat in that State. In this juncture the

State assembly of the Tamil Nadu has passed a resolution unanimously to bring Tamil as a court language in the High Court of Tamil Nadu and the same decision was sent to the

President of India to obtain consent in 2006 itself. The same was sent twice to the Honble Supreme Court of India. But the same was a futile exercise as the same was not required to be done by the Constitution of India. Later, the Supreme Court has rejected the resolution passed unanimously by the assembly of the Tamil Nadu. The same may not bind the aspiration of the people of Tamil Nadu as the opinion of the Supreme Court is not required, as the same is not demanded by the Constitution of India. Thus, when a state has spent its valuable time in the exercise of passing a anonymous resolution and the center has failed to satisfy the aspiration of the people of Tamil Nadu. Therefore the people, having supported by a unanimous resolution passed by the paramount law making body of the state, would entitle to enjoy the said right without any intervention as it has to be deemed to be law of the land. C. It is submitted that it is pertinent to mention here that after the resolution of the state assembly, that was endorsed by this Honble Court through a full court reference. Thus, the consent given through the full court reference which would bind every Hon'ble judges of this Honble High court and going against the said reference is arbitrary and unconstitutional. D. It is submitted that the Mathili Mai Vs Veda Moorthi, 1970 (3) SCC 738 is relied by the Honble Single judge in passing the impugned order is not maintainable in the eyes of law. Because,

as discussed in the said decision, the Attorney General and some of the members of the Bench were unable to understand Hindi, hence, the Honble Supreme court had insisted the Raj Narayanan to argue his case in English that too only on the second day since the Attorney General opposed the Hindi argument, though Mr. Raj Narayanan was allowed to advance his argument in Hindi on first day. But, here the existing situation is diametrically opposite as the government advocate is well conversant with Tamil and the Government advocate has not objected the Tamil argument and it is not the case of the Honble judge that he could not understand Tamil. In such a situation, not allowing the counsel to argue in Tamil is arbitrary and would not enable to meet the ends of justice. E. It is submitted that in 2007, the Honble High Court has accepted the resolution passed by the Tamil Nadu State assembly which requested the president to give assent to make Tamil as court language and subsequently, in 2010 also, the chief Justice of Madras High court has once again accepted the demand of the lawyers to allow them to argue in Tamil. Therefore, going back in their word would be promissory estoppels and the same cannot be allowed in a country where the rule of law is existing, that too by a constitutional functionary. F. It is submitted that when legislative and executive functions are allowed in Tamil language, judicial body which is the most

important wing of the state is forced to adopt a foreign language against the wish and beyond the knowledge of the people. This is unconstitutional in the letter and spirit of the constitution.

G. It is submitted that in AIR 1977 ALLHABAD 164 entitled Prabhandhak Samiti and another vs Zila Vidyalaya Nirikshak, Allahabad and others, the Honble Division Bench of Allahabad High court has decided as follows,6. It cannot be doubted that the proceedings of the courts functioning for the benefit of the inhabitants of any place must on principle be conducted in a language understood by them. It does not appear to be sufficiently realized that the employment of an indigenous language is essential for maintaining the democratic character of the Courts. They can be linked with the people only by using their language; it is a necessary democratic feature of the Courts and one of the foundations of socialist justice. In para 14,This is clear from the non obstante clause with which Article 348(2) opens. It is thus made possible to permit the use of Hindi language for proceedings in the High Court by an appropriate order of the Governor of the State under Article 348(2) despite the provisions of Article 348(1). Accordingly by a notification made under Article 348(2) in the year 1961 the Governor of Uttar Pradesh permitted the use of Hindi language for purposes of arguments in criminal cases. By a similar order made in 1966 the Governor had permitted the use of Hindi language for the purpose of arguments in civil cases as well. But the most notable step in this direction was the order dated 5th September, 1969 issued by the Governor of U.P. with the previous consent of the President under Article 348(2).

Thus, though arguments in criminal cases in 1961 and in civil cases in 1966 were allowed in Hindi respectively, the consent of the President was granted in 1969 only. But, the Honble High court has accommodated the aspiration of the people at the larger interest of the people. Denying such rights and aspiration of people from a particular state say Tamil Nadu is against the principles of equality as enshrined in the constitution of India. H. Because the need to make the judicial system people friendly and drag it away from the distance created by our colonial masters from the people has to be redressed and one of the most essential and efficient way to do this is to enforce usage of state language which will facilitate identifying of the masses with the state and also provide speedy justice.

H. Because the need to make Tamil a court language was many a times insisted and discussed by out representative in parliament.

I.

That the article 350 runs as follows,:-

350. Language to be used in representations for redress of grievances Every person shall be entitled to submit a representation for the redress of any grievance to any officer or authority of the Union or a State in any of the languages used in the Union or in the State, as the case may be Also, article 350 a runs as follows:-

350A. Facilities for instruction in mother-tongue at primary stage.- It shall be the endeavour of every State and of every local authority within the State to provide adequate facilities for instruction in the mother-tongue at the primary stage of education to children belonging to linguistic minority groups; and the President may issue such directions to any State as he considers necessary or proper for securing the provision of such facilities. Thus, the above mentioned articles of our constitution are insisting the necessity of the mother tongue in education and in approaching various government authorities. Therefore, keeping stringent view regarding the court language is not supported by the spirit and letter of the constitution of India. The forefathers of our country and legal luminaries have visualized a parity among the various languages to save the effective administration of the country. But, the order of the Single Judge has axed that. J. It is submitted that the well-known former Supreme Court Judge V.R. Krishna Iyer is praised for the democratic and vibrant opinions given by him in many social issues. Regarding the judicial system, the said Honble Judge opined that, the justice system should be such that the common man, the worker, the peasants and the social activists will be able to argue before them. Thus, regarding the court language, the same judge opined that, the language of the law should be made simple, lucid and understandable enough for the common man. K. It is submitted that the former Chief Justice of Madras high Court, Mr. M.M.Ismail has given a detailed article in the preamble of the law journal ( Theerppu thirattu) about the hegemony of the English language over the Indian languages and it deprives common men from actively participating in judicial process and to an extent denies access to justice. He also further states the Indian freedom movement had an aim not just to oppose alien British power but also bring equality in all realm of public life including political, economic,

cultural and social development. In this above sense, if the language common people speak is adopted as an official language one can realize the vision and ideal of freedom movement described above. L. It is submitted that our constitution not only guarantees enforcement of fundamental right to the citizens of this country but also secures the process of securing the same. Therefore dismissing a Writ Petition on the ground that an advocate was representing the clients case in Tamil that too when arguing in a Writ Petition would be improper and beyond legality.

Value of the Writ Petition : Court fee Paid Value of Writ Appeal Court fee Paid : : :

Incapable of Valuation Rs.200/Incapable of Valuation Rs.200/-

Dated at Madurai on this 23rdday of July, 2013.

Counsel for the Appellant/Petitioner.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE MADRAS MADURAI BENCH (Special Original Jurisdiction) W.A. No. AyishaBanu, W/o. Thiru. BakeerMaideen, No. 59/81, MohameedSalihapuram, Pallivasal 1st Street, 13 Ward, Kovilpatti 628 501, Thoothukudi District. ... - Vs Ministry of Overseas Indian Affairs, Through its Secretary, Akbar Bhawan, Chanakyapuri, New Delhi 21. and 3 others ... of 2013

Appellant / Petitioner

Respondents / Respondents

INDEX TO TYPED SET OF PAPERS SI.No. Date Particulars Page No.

Certified that the documents above mentioned are the true copies of their originals. Dated at Madurai on this 23rdday of July, 2013. Counsel for the Appellant.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE MADRAS AT MADURAI BENCH (Appellate Jurisdiction) M.P. No. - In W.A. No. AyishaBanu, W/o. Thiru. BakeerMaideen, No. 59/81, MohameedSalihapuram, Pallivasal 1st Street, 13 Ward, Kovilpatti 628 501, Thoothukudi District. ... - Vs 1. Ministry of Overseas Indian Affairs, Through its Secretary, Akbar Bhawan, Chanakyapuri, New Delhi 21. 2. The Protector General of Emigrants, Ministry of Overseas Indian Affairs, 9th floor, Akbar Bhawan, Chanakyapuri, New Delhi -21. 3.The principal Secretary and Commissioner, Commissionerate of Rehabilitation and Welfare of Non-Resident Tamils, Chepauk, Chennai 5. 4. The District Collector, Korampallam, Thoothukudi. of 2013 of 2013

Appellant / Petitioner

...

Respondents / Respondents

AFFIDAVIT OF THE PETITIONER I, AyishaBanu,W/o. Thiru. BakeerMaideen, aged about years,No. 59/81, MohameedSalihapuram,Pallivasal 1st Street,13 Ward,Kovilpatti 628 501,Thoothukudi District, now temporarily

come over to Kovilpatti, do hereby solemnly affirm and sincerely state as under:
1.

That I am the Petitioner herein and I am well acquainted with the facts of the case and as such I am competent to swear this affidavit.

2.

I submit that I filed a Writ Petition challenging the order of ---------- on the file of the Respondent that ------------- .

3.

I submit that this Honble Court vide order dated 18.04.2009 dismissed my Writ Petition holding that it was ------------ .

4.

I submit that the copy of the order was applied on ---- and the same was made ready on ------------- and it was delivered on ------------. I was mentally upset with the whole episode of suspension and the litigations, I was in total dismay. And I did not have sufficient funds also to file an appeal on time.

5.

I submit that I have preferred the instant writ appeal. But there is a delay of ------- days in filing this writ appeal. Therefore I was advised to file a petition to condone the delay in filing the appeal. The delay is neither willful nor wanton. Unless the delay of ----- days is condoned I will be put to irreparable loss and hardship.

It is most respectfully prayed that this Honble Court may be pleased to condone the delay of ---- days in filing the Appeal in W.A.S.R. No. of 2012 and thus render Justice.

That since by virtue of the impugned order, the Petitioner is on prolonged suspension for more than a period of 14 months, it is prayed that this Honble Court may be pleased to stay the operation of the Order of suspension in R.C.A3/36641/2008 dated 24.12.2008 on the file of Respondent pending disposal of the instant Writ Appeal and thus render justice. Solemnly affirmed after the contents are explained to him in Tamil and having understood PETITIONER the same on this day of July, 2013 and signed his name in my presence BEFORE ME

ADVOCATE

MEMORANDUM OF WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE MADRAS AT MADURAI BENCH (Special Original Jurisdiction) W.P. (MD) No. AyishaBanu, W/o. Thiru. BakeerMaideen, No. 59/81, MohameedSalihapuram, Pallivasal 1st Street, 13 Ward, Kovilpatti 628 501, Thoothukudi District. ... - Vs 1. Ministry of Overseas Indian Affairs, Through its Secretary, Akbar Bhawan, Chanakyapuri, New Delhi 21. 2. The Protector General of Emigrants, Ministry of Overseas Indian Affairs, 9th floor, Akbar Bhawan, Chanakyapuri, New Delhi -21. 3.The principal Secretary and Commissioner, Commissionerate of Rehabilitation and Welfare of Non-Resident Tamils, Chepauk, Chennai 5. 4. The District Collector, Korampallam, Thoothukudi. of 2013

Appellant / Petitioner

...

Respondents / Respondents

WRIT PETITION The address for service of all processes and notices to the appellant is that of his counsels M/s. V. Rajiv Rufus, M. Maran, N.Sobanabai, at 2/274, Thilahar Street, Kurinchi Nagar,

Narayanapuram, Madurai-14.

The address for service of all processes and notices to the Respondents is as stated above. For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is most respectfully prayed that this Honble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction in the nature of Writ of --------------- and pass such further order or order suitable orders as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case and thus render Justice. Dated at Madurai on this 23rd July, 2013.

Counsel for the Petitioner.