Constitution of India
Article 120: Language to be used in Parliament
Part V — The Union (Chapter II — Parliament, sub-heading: Procedure Generally)
Clause (1)
WHAT IT SAYS: Business in Parliament shall be transacted in Hindi or English; the Chairman of Rajya Sabha or Speaker of Lok Sabha may permit a member who cannot adequately express himself in Hindi or English to address the House in his mother-tongue. WHAT IT MEANS: 1. Hindi and English are the two constitutionally sanctioned languages for parliamentary proceedings. 2. Use of mother-tongue is NOT a right — it requires permission of the Presiding Officer. 3. This clause operates 'notwithstanding anything in Part XVII' but remains 'subject to Article 348'. 4. The discretion of the Presiding Officer is final and non-justiciable as an internal proceeding of Parliament. KEY DOCTRINE: Doctrine of Linguistic Inclusivity — ensures democratic participation is not barred by language proficiency.
Clause (2)
WHAT IT SAYS: Unless Parliament by law otherwise provides, after 15 years from commencement of the Constitution (i.e., after 26 January 1965), the words 'or in English' shall be deemed omitted from clause (1). WHAT IT MEANS: 1. Originally envisaged a SUNSET CLAUSE for English — Hindi was to become the sole parliamentary language after 1965. 2. Parliament exercised its power under this clause by enacting the Official Languages Act, 1963 (amended 1967). 3. Section 3(1)(b) of that Act allows English to continue indefinitely for transaction of business in Parliament. 4. English can only be discontinued when ALL non-Hindi State Legislatures AND both Houses of Parliament pass resolutions to that effect. KEY DOCTRINE: Doctrine of Transitional Provision — a built-in constitutional sunset mechanism overridden by parliamentary legislation.
Constitutional Inspiration
SOURCE(S): 1. No single direct foreign borrowing — Article 120 is largely an ORIGINAL INDIAN CONTRIBUTION born out of India's unique multilingual reality. 2. The broader framework of official languages draws from the Canadian model of bilingualism (English & French), but Article 120's specific mother-tongue proviso has no direct foreign parallel. INDIA'S SPECIFIC ADAPTATIONS: 1. Bilingual legislature (Hindi + English) — Needed because of the deep North-South linguistic divide; 14 September 1949 Munshi-Ayyangar formula resolved the 3-year language deadlock in the Constituent Assembly. 2. Mother-tongue proviso with Presiding Officer's discretion — India's hundreds of languages required a safety valve so that no elected representative would be silenced due to linguistic barriers. 3. 15-year sunset clause for English (Clause 2) — Framers hoped Hindi would develop sufficiently to become sole parliamentary language, while giving non-Hindi speakers transitional time. 4. Subordination to Article 348 — Ensures consistency between the language of Parliament and the language of courts/legislation.
Constituent Assembly Debate
DEBATED ON: 17 September 1949 (CAD Volume IX) Draft Article Number: Draft Article 99 KEY SPEAKERS: 1. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar (Chairman, Drafting Committee) — Moved a substantial amendment to modify the original Draft Article 99; the Assembly debated based on his amended version. 2. N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar (Madras) — Co-architect of the Munshi-Ayyangar formula; advocated Hindi as official (not national) language with a transitional English period. 3. K.M. Munshi (Bombay) — Co-architect of the compromise formula; pushed for Hindi in Devanagari script as the official language while retaining English temporarily. 4. R.V. Dhulekar (U.P.) — Strongly advocated immediate adoption of Hindi as the sole language; opposed the 15-year English transition as unnecessary. 5. T.T. Krishnamachari (Madras) — Represented Southern concerns; warned against Hindi imposition and argued for continued English use. MAJOR DISAGREEMENTS: 1. Mother-tongue as a right vs. discretion — A member proposed amending clause (1) to include Bengali or any regional language as a right, not merely at the Speaker's discretion; he argued MPs might be 'prohibited' from speaking in their mother tongue. 2. Hindi-only vs. bilingual Parliament — Northern members wanted immediate Hindi exclusivity; Southern members insisted on English continuity to prevent linguistic alienation. FINAL OUTCOME: The member who proposed adding Bengali/regional languages withdrew his amendment; Ambedkar's amended Draft Article 99 was adopted as Article 120 with Hindi-English bilingualism and the mother-tongue proviso left to Presiding Officer's discretion. AMBEDKAR'S ROLE: He moved the key amendment that substantially reshaped the Draft Article, ensuring it balanced Hindi promotion with English continuity and linguistic inclusivity.
Landmark Judgments
LANDMARK JUDGMENTS: 1. There are no major Supreme Court judgments directly interpreting Article 120, as its implementation has been largely smooth and non-contentious. 2. Courts generally treat matters related to parliamentary language as internal proceedings of Parliament, protected by Article 122 (courts not to inquire into proceedings of Parliament). RELATED JUDGMENTS ON LANGUAGE POLICY: 1. U.P. Hindi Sahitya Sammelan v. State of U.P. (2014) — Supreme Court upheld 'linguistic secularism'; held India's language laws are 'not rigid but accommodative.' 2. Union of India v. H.S. Dhillon (1972) — Emphasized procedural clarity and the role of language in legislative proceedings. KEY LEGISLATIVE DEVELOPMENTS: 1. Official Languages Act, 1963 (Section 3) — Allowed English to continue for parliamentary business beyond 26 January 1965. 2. Official Languages (Amendment) Act, 1967 — Made English continuation indefinite; English can only be dropped when all non-Hindi state legislatures AND both Houses of Parliament pass discontinuance resolutions. COMMISSIONS & SCHOLARS: 1. Sarkaria Commission — Highlighted the importance of language in legislative processes; recommended measures for effective parliamentary communication. 2. NCRWC (2002) — Suggested reforms to enhance inclusivity of parliamentary proceedings, including strengthening language provisions. 3. D.D. Basu (Constitutional Law Scholar) — Noted that Article 120 is a practical compromise ensuring no MP is denied meaningful participation due to linguistic limitations.