Supreme Court rebukes Advocates-on-Record over translation errors, emphasizing accountability in legal document accuracy.
SC SLAMS POOR TRANSLATIONS & CALLS FOR RESPONSIBILITY FROM ADVOCATES-ON-RECORD
Headline
SC Slams Poor Translations & calls for responsibility from Advocates-on-Record; Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice JK Maheshwari Summon the President of SCAORA.
Summary
The Supreme Court of India condemned incorrect translations in the documents of the court and summoned Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record of India (SCAORA) President Vipin Nair. Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice JK Maheshwari stressed that Advocates-on-Record (AoRs) must see accuracy in translated submissions.
Key Facts
- Case: Employment reinstatement of a teacher.
- Judges: Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice JK Maheshwari.
- Issue: A tribunal order from 1999, translated from Gujarati to English, by mistake replaced “reinstated” with “re-established,” distorting and changing its meaning.
- Court’s Action: Strongly criticised the mistranslation and summoned SCAORA President, and ordered corrective measures.
Legal Insights
- Advocates-on-Record (AoR) are legally accountable for certifying documents submitted to the Supreme Court of India.
- Incorrect translations can mislead proceedings of court by violating Article 21 (Right to Fair Trial) of the Indian Constitution.
- Section 7 of the Official Languages Act, 1963, mandates accurate and correct translation of official documents for legal purposes.
Impact
- The ruling of the Supreme Court reinforces the duty of AoRs to look into translation accuracy.
- May lead to strict regulations on submission of documents in the Supreme Court.
- Show the requirement for a dedicated translation mechanism, similar to that in the Delhi High Court.
Why It Matters
This case shows the frustration of the Supreme Court of India over continuous translation errors affecting justice delivery. The demand for accountability from Advocates-on-Record may bring systemic improvements in court documentation.
Source
Also read – SC TO CLARIFY RULES ON LAWYERS’ APPEARANCE RECORDING
