Introduction
In a significant language policy dispute, the Delhi High Court has questioned the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) over its resistance to renaming the ‘Supreme Court’ Metro Station using the proper Hindi equivalent “Sarvoch Nyayalay” instead of a mere transliteration in Devanagari script.
The Court made it clear that apprehensions regarding litigation or financial burden cannot override statutory obligations under India’s Official Languages framework.
Background of the Dispute
The controversy arose from a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by a Delhi resident seeking correction of the Hindi nomenclature of the Supreme Court Metro Station.
Currently, the station displays a Hindi transliteration of “Supreme Court” rather than the standardized Hindi translation “Sarvoch Nyayalay.”
During earlier hearings, the Bench pointed out inconsistencies in DMRC’s naming practices. It noted that other stations such as Delhi University Metro Station and Central Secretariat Metro Station already display proper Hindi translations.
DMRC’s Defenc
DMRC argued that:
-
Renaming the station could trigger similar demands for translation changes elsewhere.
-
Such a move might open the “floodgates” to litigation.
-
The estimated public expenditure for implementing the change would range between ₹40–45 lakh.
-
Station naming falls within administrative and policy discretion.
The corporation suggested that such alterations should not be mandated through judicial intervention.
Court’s Observations
The Bench rejected these arguments, observing that administrative inconvenience cannot dilute legislative mandates. Emphasising statutory compliance, the Court stated:
“We have to honour the Act. These are not the defences available to you to deny the application of the Act.”
The Court underscored that once a statutory framework governs language usage in public authorities, compliance is not optional or subject to financial or speculative concerns.
Legal Framework
The issue engages provisions of the Official Languages Act, 1963, which regulates the use of Hindi and English in official functions of the Union and its instrumentalities.
Additionally, Article 343 of the Constitution of India establishes Hindi in Devanagari script as the official language of the Union, subject to statutory provisions allowing continued use of English.
The Court’s stance indicates that public bodies such as DMRC—functioning under governmental oversight—must adhere strictly to statutory language requirements.
Broader Constitutional Implications
The case raises larger constitutional questions concerning:
-
The enforceability of official language mandates;
-
The limits of administrative discretion;
-
Judicial oversight over statutory compliance;
-
The balance between policy autonomy and legislative supremacy.
By prioritising statutory obligations over administrative convenience, the Court has reaffirmed the principle that executive bodies cannot bypass legislative mandates on grounds of cost or anticipated litigation.
Present Status
The Court has directed DMRC to file its detailed response on record. No immediate relief has been granted at this stage, and the matter has been listed for further consideration.
The outcome of the case may clarify the scope of enforceability of the Official Languages framework in public infrastructure and governance institutions.
By KANISHKSOCIALMEDIA For more updates on environmental regulations, public health policies, and developments in India’s governance, follow Kanishk Social Media for comprehensive and timely coverage of critical issues. If you found this article helpful, share it with others interested in India’s environmental efforts and policy innovation
0 Comments