Another Hindi-in-Court PIL, Another Dismissal: A Pattern at the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on September 25, 2026 dismissed a PIL seeking a commission to examine the possible use of Hindi as an official language of the Court, pointing instead to phased reforms already underway.

What Happened

The Supreme Court on Friday, September 25, dismissed a public interest litigation seeking directions for the constitution of a commission to examine the possible use of Hindi as an official language of the Supreme Court.

Per Bar & Bench’s report, a Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana declined to entertain the plea.

During the hearing, CJI Surya Kant told the petitioner’s counsel that measures of this nature “do not happen through court orders”. He said such changes take place “as part of reforms, slowly and in a phased manner”, adding that the Supreme Court was already undertaking reforms in this direction.

The CJI referred to steps such as providing brief descriptions of the Court’s reports in Hindi, with plans to extend similar measures to other regional languages.

When counsel nevertheless urged the Bench to “at least” direct the constitution of a commission, Justice V. Mohana questioned how the Court could grant relief that would effectively require a constitutional amendment.

The petitioner continued to press for the constitution of a commission, but the Bench declined to entertain the plea and dismissed it.

Background & Context

The constitutional question underlying the petition is Article 348 of the Constitution.

Article 348(1)(a) provides that proceedings in the Supreme Court and in every High Court are to be conducted in English. Article 348(2), however, permits a limited exception for High Courts. A State Governor may, with the previous consent of the President, authorise the use of Hindi or another language in proceedings of that State’s High Court.

There is no equivalent constitutional exception under Article 348 for proceedings in the Supreme Court.

The issue has reached the Supreme Court through PILs on several occasions.

In 2024, the Court dismissed a writ petition filed by advocate Kishan Chand Jain that challenged Article 348(1) and sought Hindi-language proceedings in the Supreme Court and High Courts. The Bench headed by then-CJI D.Y. Chandrachud, with Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, described the petition as “wholly lacking in substance” and questioned why the relief was confined to Hindi rather than extending to all constitutionally recognised languages.

An earlier line of litigation involved petitioner Shiv Sagar Tiwari. His PIL sought a similar change to Article 348 and was considered by a Bench headed by then-CJI T.S. Thakur. The Bench cautioned against filing frivolous PILs on the subject and briefly considered imposing costs of ₹1 lakh before withdrawing that proposal.

The Tiwari litigation had itself begun earlier. In 2014, a Bench headed by then-CJI H.L. Dattu issued notice to the Central government on the issue. The Union government subsequently filed an affidavit opposing the proposal, relying, among other things, on the 216th Law Commission Report of 2008.

Taken together, these proceedings provide the historical context for today’s dismissal. The petitioners were different and the precise relief sought in each proceeding was not identical, but the constitutional issue has repeatedly returned to the Supreme Court.

Key Details

• Court/Forum: Supreme Court of India.
• Date: September 25, 2026.
• Bench: CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana.
• Relief sought: Constitution of a commission to examine the use of Hindi as an official language of the Supreme Court.
• Outcome: The PIL was dismissed. Per Bar & Bench’s report, the Bench indicated that such reform should proceed through phased administrative measures rather than a judicial direction.
• Constitutional provision: Article 348 of the Constitution of India.
• Prior proceedings: A 2024 PIL by Kishan Chand Jain and earlier proceedings involving Shiv Sagar Tiwari raised related challenges concerning language in Supreme Court and High Court proceedings.

Why It Matters

Today’s dismissal is significant in the context of a recurring constitutional question rather than as an isolated PIL outcome.

Across different benches and Chief Justices over more than a decade, the Supreme Court has repeatedly declined to use its PIL jurisdiction to alter the language framework contained in Article 348. The earlier cases involved different petitioners and different formulations of relief, but the Court’s approach has consistently placed the question within the domain of constitutional change rather than judicial rewriting.

For law students, the line of cases illustrates an important distinction in the use of PIL jurisdiction. Courts can, in appropriate circumstances, address failures in executive action or enforce existing legal and constitutional rights. A request to change the constitutional text itself presents a different institutional question.

That distinction was particularly visible during today’s hearing. When counsel narrowed the immediate request to the constitution of a commission, Justice Mohana questioned whether even that direction could effectively produce a change requiring constitutional amendment.

At the same time, the Court’s position does not necessarily amount to a rejection of the underlying concern about linguistic access to justice. CJI Kant pointed to administrative measures already being undertaken, including Hindi descriptions of the Court’s reports and the proposed expansion of such measures to other regional languages.

That emphasis is important. The Court appears, on the account reported by Bar & Bench, to be distinguishing between changing Article 348 through judicial intervention and improving linguistic accessibility through institutional and administrative reforms.

The historical record also shows a difference in tone between today’s proceedings and some earlier cases. Earlier benches had expressly criticised aspects of the PIL litigation, including describing one 2024 petition as lacking substance and cautioning against frivolous PILs in the Tiwari proceedings. Today’s petitioner should not be conflated with those earlier litigants.

The broader constitutional debate therefore remains open. What the latest dismissal adds is another instance of the Supreme Court maintaining the distinction between constitutional amendment, judicial direction and incremental administrative reform.

Closing

The September 25 dismissal places another Hindi-language PIL within a longer judicial history surrounding Article 348. While the Supreme Court has repeatedly declined to alter the constitutional language framework through PIL proceedings, the Court has also pointed to incremental measures aimed at making its work more accessible across languages.

For now, the constitutional mandate remains unchanged, while the Court’s approach continues to favour phased institutional reform over a judicially directed alteration of Article 348.