The Supreme Court of India addressed the issue of language accessibility in judicial proceedings on Thursday, emphasizing that English proficiency should not be presumed, especially in the context of court cases in Kerala. This observation came during the hearing of a petition to transfer divorce and child custody proceedings from Kerala to Punjab.
A Bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta considered the petition filed by a woman currently residing in the United Kingdom. She sought the transfer of ongoing legal proceedings initiated by her husband in Kerala to Ludhiana, Punjab, citing language and logistical difficulties.
Advocate Aljo Joseph, representing the husband, opposed the transfer request, arguing that language should not be a barrier since “everybody knows English in Kerala.” However, Justice Sandeep Mehta countered this assertion, stating, “It’s very difficult there. Don’t tell us. Even if they know English, they don’t want to speak.” This highlighted the Supreme Court’s acknowledgment of potential challenges individuals face, even in states perceived as language-friendly.
The petitioner-wife’s legal representative, Advocate Kunal R Choksi, elaborated on the difficulties encountered due to language barriers. He stated that his client could not effectively participate in the proceedings in Kerala, and her mother, who represents her interests in India, faced similar challenges.
The court was informed about the couple’s background, including their marriage in 2017 and subsequent relocation to the UK, where their relationship deteriorated. The husband returned to India with their minor child and initiated multiple legal proceedings, including custody and divorce, in Kerala.
More Read
In defense, the husband argued that the child had been residing with him in Kerala for three years and that the legal proceedings should continue there. He also contended that since the wife is based abroad, changing the forum would not significantly impact her.
Despite these arguments, the Bench was unconvinced, emphasizing the wife’s inability to participate effectively in the proceedings as a crucial factor, notably in a custody case. The court also considered the practical implications of requiring the child to travel if the case was transferred, noting that frequent long-distance travel would be impractical.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court decided to transfer the case, directing that all pending proceedings be moved from Kerala to a court in Ludhiana, Punjab. This decision underscores the importance the judiciary places on ensuring equitable participation in legal processes, free from language barriers.
