 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
|
 |
 |
|
|
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
 |
 |
|
||||||||||
 |
|
|||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
Report No. 58 Question of language considered 9.14. In regard to the problem of the language1 of the Court, it is urged that one need not take recourse to the concept of the Zonal Courts to achieve that objective. On principle, it can and should be urged that it is desirable and essential that the language of the High Courts and the Supreme Court should continue to be one and that one language, for some years, has inevitably to be English. On this point, both the advocates and the opponents of the concept of Zonal Courts are agreed. The opponents, however, contend that an artificial device of establishing Zonal Courts which would radically alter the structure and functions of the High Courts, would hardly assist the object on which most of the lawyers and Judges of the country are agreed. Therefore, we have come to the conclusion that the idea of Zonal Courts cannot be accepted and should not be recommended. 1. Para. 9.7, supra.    |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
 |
|
|||||||||||
 |
|
 |
|
|||||||||
Back