Though Valid, Statute In Vernacular Language Cannot Be Treated As Authoritative Text In High Court:Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court observed that a statute in vernacular language cannot be treated as authoritative text as far as the High Court was concerned. According to the Article 348 of the Constitution, 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.

The Bench of Justice T.R. Ravi observed, “In the above paragraph, I have deliberately considered only the provisions of the Act, since I have already found that the First Statutes which is the vernacular cannot be treated as an authoritative text. I hasten to add that, the above conclusion does not in any manner mean that the First Statutes is invalid. All that is required is to comply with the constitutional mandate of publishing an English version in the Official Gazette, which has been authorised by the Governor. I shall now examine the issue, treating the vernacular version as an authoritative text, in the absence of an English translation.”

Senior Advocate P. Ravindran represented the Petitioner, while Advocate A.J. Varghese represented the Respondent.

Case Brief

The Petitioner was a member of the syndicate of the APJ Abdul Kalam University. As per the orders of the High Court, disciplinary proceedings by the Syndicate against one of the employees of the University had to be finalised, however, the matter was not included in the 63rd agenda of the meeting of the Syndicate.

One of the members of the Syndicate mentioned this matter at the meeting and requested inclusion of this item in the agenda. However, the Vice Chancellor refused to entertain the request and declared that the meeting was closed, even without considering any of the items on the agenda.

Later, the Vice Chancellor annulled the decision of the Syndicate when the members continued with the meeting in the absence of the Vice Chancellor and transacted the business included in the agenda.

It was contended that Statute 10 of the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University First Statutes, 2020, (First Statutes) provides that the Syndicate, in its discretion, can consider and discuss any issue brought to its notice.

While, the Vice Chancellor contended that the Writ Petition was not maintainable as there was no averment in the writ petition as to how the Petitioner was aggrieved by the decision of the Vice-Chancellor.

Court’s Observation

Following issues were before the High Court:

1. Whether the First Statute of the University, which is in Vernacular, can be relied on for the purpose of ascertaining the powers of the Syndicate and the Vice Chancellor and their functioning?

2. Whether a writ petition can be maintained by a member of the Syndicate against a decision of the Vice Chancellor, as a person aggrieved?

3. Whether the Vice Chancellor could have called off a meeting which was properly convened, after the meeting has started, without carrying out any of the business which were in the agenda?

4. Whether the Vice Chancellor can annul the decisions taken by the remaining members of the Syndicate after the Vice Chancellor left the meeting, treating the same as not a meeting held in accordance with law ?

With regard to the first issue, the High Court referred to Article 348 of the Constitution of India which deals with Language to be used in the Supreme Court and in the High Courts and for Acts, Bills, etc.

“As per Section 2 of the Kerala Official Languages Act, 1969, the language to be used in Bills…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”, the High Court noted.

The Court was of the view that it is important that an English translation as provided in Article 348 (3) of the Constitution is available, in cases where the legislations are regarding Universities which provide higher education, especially when the State has been aiming to become a global education hub.

The Court held that the First Statutes which was the vernacular cannot be treated as an authoritative text, however, it does not mean that the First Statutes was invalid.

Later, the Court referred to the provisions dealing with the powers of the Vice Chancellor and meetings of the Syndicate as provided under the A.P.J.Abdul Kalam Technological University Act, 2015. The Court noted that as per the provisions of the Sections 28 of the Act, no meeting of the Syndicate can happen at the instance of the individual members and has to be necessarily with the junction of the Vice Chancellor and the Registrar.

“The mere fact that the requirement of the quorum was satisfied, it cannot be held to be a properly convened meeting of the Syndicate. To hold that such a meeting should be treated as a properly convened meeting can create havoc… In case the Vice Chancellor falters in his duty to call the meeting of the Syndicate, there are sufficient provisions to approach the Chancellor. Such inbuilt controls are required to ensure a smooth and systematic functioning of the University”, the Court held.

Further, with regard to whether the Vice Chancellor could have called off a meeting which was properly convened, the Court opined that in case of statutory meetings, the person who convenes the meeting had power to call off the meeting even before it commenced or to call off a meeting which had already commenced, in certain situations. Hence, such a power has to be conceded in favour of the Vice Chancellor in the case on hand.

“If it is to be held that the members can convene meeting by themselves, it would mean that in a case like this, there can be a possibility of the three groups of five members each, can all convene different meetings by themselves, satisfying the quorum for the meeting, and decide as they like, on the so called reason of “absence of the Vice Chancellor”, the Court held.

The High Court observed that the order of the Vice Chancellor annulling the decision of the Syndicate was not illegal as the said meeting cannot be treated as a meeting of the Syndicate.

Subsequently, the Court reminded the Vice Chancellor that it was not necessary y to adjourn meetings when requests are made to add items to the agenda as it is well within the powers of the Chairman of a meeting to add additional items in the agenda which may become necessary and to discuss on the same and if necessary, postpone the decision to another day.

Accordingly, the Writ Petition was dismissed.

Cause Title: Dr. Vinodkumar Jacob V. The Vice Chancellor, APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University

Appearance:

Petitioner: Senior Advocate P. Ravindran, Advocates Aparna Rajan, M.R. Sabu, Lakshmi Sreedhar Ravindran

Respondents: Advocates A.J. Varghese, M.A.Vaheeda Babu, Babu Karukapadath, Arya Raghunath , Karukapadath Wazim Babu, P.Lakshmi, Aysha E.M. , Hashim K.M., Abuasil A.K., Haniya Nafiza V.S., M.I.Insaf Mooppan, Rishi Vincent, P.K.Abdul Rahiman ,Manu Krishna S.K., K.R.Ganesh, Elvin Peter P.J. (Sr.)

Click here to read/download Judgment