Constitution of India
Article 210: Language to be used in the Legislature
Part VI — The States (Chapter III — The State Legislature, Sub-heading: Procedure Generally)
Clause (1)
WHAT IT SAYS: Business in a State Legislature shall be transacted in the official language(s) of the State, or in Hindi, or in English — but the Speaker/Chairman may permit a member who cannot adequately express himself in these languages to speak in his mother tongue. WHAT IT MEANS: State legislatures enjoy a triple-language option (state official language, Hindi, English); mother-tongue use is an exception, not a right — it requires the Chair's permission. KEY DOCTRINE: Doctrine of Linguistic Accommodation — the Chair exercises discretionary power to ensure inclusive participation without compromising legislative efficiency.
Clause (2)
WHAT IT SAYS: Unless the State Legislature by law otherwise provides, after 15 years from 26 January 1950 (i.e., after 1965), this article shall operate as if 'or in English' were omitted — with special extensions: 25 years for Himachal Pradesh, Manipur, Meghalaya & Tripura; 40 years for Arunachal Pradesh, Goa & Mizoram. WHAT IT MEANS: 1. English was intended as a transitional language in State Legislatures. 2. After the specified period, English drops out automatically UNLESS the State Legislature enacts a law to retain it. 3. Most states have enacted laws continuing English, so in practice English still continues. KEY DOCTRINE: Sunset Clause / Transitional Provision — English was envisioned to phase out, giving way to indigenous languages, but legislative inaction or conscious retention has kept it alive.
Constitutional Inspiration
SOURCE(S): 1. No single foreign model — Article 210 is largely an ORIGINAL INDIAN CONTRIBUTION born out of India's unique multilingual reality. 2. Article 120 (Language in Parliament) — Article 210 is the STATE-LEVEL PARALLEL of Article 120, which governs language in Parliament. Original provision: Article 120 allows Hindi or English in Parliament with a mother-tongue exception. What India kept: Article 210 mirrors Article 120 but ADDS 'official language(s) of the State' as an additional option, reflecting regional diversity. INDIA'S SPECIFIC ADAPTATIONS: 1. Triple-language formula (State official language + Hindi + English) — Why: India's 22+ major languages made a single-language approach unworkable for State Legislatures. 2. Sunset clause for English with State-level opt-out — Why: The framers wanted gradual transition to indigenous languages but recognised States' practical needs. 3. Extended timelines for NE/newer States (HP, Manipur, Meghalaya, Tripura, Arunachal Pradesh, Goa, Mizoram) — Why: These states became full states later and relied heavily on English as a lingua franca due to tribal linguistic diversity.
Constituent Assembly Debate
DEBATED ON: 17 September 1949 (CAD Volume IX) DRAFT ARTICLE NUMBER: Draft Article 184 KEY SPEAKERS: 1. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar (Chairman, Drafting Committee) — Proposed wholly substituting Draft Article 184 with the current formulation, adding the proviso allowing the Speaker/Chairman to permit mother-tongue use for members unable to express themselves in the prescribed languages. 2. One unnamed member — Proposed a single amendment, which was ultimately withdrawn. MAJOR DISAGREEMENTS: 1. Language of State Legislatures — The original Draft Article 184 prescribed 'the language or languages generally used in that State' along with Hindi and English. Ambedkar substituted this with 'official language or languages of the State' — a more precise formulation. 2. The broader language debate in the Constituent Assembly was intense — some members strongly favoured Hindi-only, others wanted English retained indefinitely — but the specific debate on Draft Article 184 was brief and largely consensual. FINAL OUTCOME: Ambedkar's substituted version was adopted; the sole proposed amendment was withdrawn — the article was passed without division. AMBEDKAR'S KEY POSITION: He favoured a pragmatic approach — allowing multiple languages including English during a transitional period, while empowering the Chair to accommodate members from diverse linguistic backgrounds.
Landmark Judgments
LANDMARK JUDGMENTS: 1. No major constitutional dispute has arisen DIRECTLY under Article 210 — this is a procedural-administrative provision governing internal legislative business. 2. Jaswant Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Lakshmi Chand (1963) — While primarily on Article 136, the Supreme Court discussed Article 210 in passing, noting that legislative business language provisions are internal to the legislature. 3. State of U.P. v. Raj Narain (1975) — The Court affirmed that language is crucial to democratic participation, and legislative proceedings must be linguistically accessible. 4. K.K. Verma v. Union of India (1954) — Addressed official use of Hindi and English, reinforcing the need for clarity in legislative and administrative communications. NOTABLE DISSENTS: 1. None reported — Article 210 has not generated significant judicial controversy. IMPORTANT RELATED PROVISIONS: 1. Article 120 — Parallel provision for Parliament (Hindi or English only; no 'official language of State' option). 2. Article 348 — Mandates English for Supreme Court, High Court proceedings and authoritative texts of Bills. 3. Articles 345–347 — Govern official language adoption at State level. 4. Official Languages Act, 1963 — Continues English for Union-State communications. SCHOLARS & JURISTS: 1. Granville Austin — Viewed the language provisions as a 'half-hearted compromise' reflecting the deep divisions in the Assembly between Hindi-proponents and English-retentionists. 2. M.P. Jain (Indian Constitutional Law) — Notes that Article 210 balances democratic inclusivity with administrative practicality by maintaining a multi-language framework in State Legislatures.