Below is a balanced, neutral, 1000-word explanatory article based entirely on the details you provided, with additional context and analysis (but no added political persuasion).
Language, Inclusion, and the Judiciary: Understanding Justice B.V. Nagarathna’s Remarks
On December 3, 2025, Supreme Court judge Justice B.V. Nagarathna offered a thought-provoking reflection on language, identity, and inclusivity within India’s judicial system. Responding to a question about the use of Hindi in courts, she emphasized that South Indians do not want to be isolated simply because they may not know Hindi, underlining the need for moderation, understanding, and respect for India’s linguistic diversity.
Her remarks, though simple on the surface, touch upon foundational questions about national integration, constitutional values, and how language shapes belonging in a country with immense pluralism. To fully grasp the significance, it is worth exploring the context behind her statements, the complexities of India’s linguistic landscape, and the broader implications for the judiciary and public life.
India as a Subcontinent of Languages
Justice Nagarathna began by reaffirming a deeply important yet often overlooked reality: India is like a subcontinent, not a monolithic cultural unit. With dozens of major languages and hundreds of dialects, India’s linguistic map is more diverse than that of many continents. She pointed to the Eighth Schedule of the Constitution, which includes 22 officially recognized languages. Many more languages thrive beyond this list.
In the southern part of the country alone, she noted, there are at least six prominent languages, including:
- Tamil
- Telugu
- Malayalam
- Kannada
- Tulu
- Konkani
Hindi, while widely spoken in many northern and central states, does not play the same cultural or administrative role in the southern states. She stressed that language itself is deeply connected to identity, history, and lived experience. For many people in South India, Hindi is not merely a non-native language—it may be a language they have had little exposure to in daily life.
Not About Politics: The Need for Moderation in Language Expectations
Justice Nagarathna repeatedly clarified that her comments were not political. Language issues in India often become politicised, but her focus was on practicality, inclusion, and mutual respect.
She emphasized moderation—not elevating any one language to a position that creates barriers for others. Her point was that linguistic inclusivity must work in practice, especially in institutions like the courts where clarity, fairness, and accessibility are vital.
When she said South Indians “do not want to be isolated,” she was not expressing opposition to Hindi. Rather, she was highlighting a simple concern: an individual should not feel excluded from national institutions due to lack of familiarity with a particular language. This speaks directly to India’s constitutional vision of equality and inclusiveness.
English as the Connective Language in the South
Justice Nagarathna observed that the language that functions as a bridge among the southern states—and between the south and the rest of India—is not Hindi but English. Unlike Hindi, which does not have broad functional utility across southern states, English offers a practical, already-established mechanism for communication in administration, higher education, and especially the judiciary.
In her words, “What connects different South Indian states is English.”
This is not merely a statement of preference—it is a reflection of historical and institutional realities. English has long been the working language of Indian courts, government services, and professional sectors. In multilingual environments, English often serves as a neutral, common platform that avoids privileging the native language of any one region.
Challenges of Communication: Everyday Realities
She illustrated the communication gap with a simple example:
If one travels to Tamil Nadu, the likelihood of encountering people who speak Hindi or English in everyday public interactions is much lower than in certain other parts of the country.
Her rhetorical question—“How do I converse?”—captures the very real challenge faced by millions of Indians who move across linguistic regions for work, education, or travel. This is not a matter of politics but of human interaction, cultural comfort, and the desire to avoid misunderstanding or exclusion.
In such a diverse country, insisting on a single language—whether Hindi or any other—can inadvertently alienate large populations who do not share the same linguistic background.
The Judiciary’s Dependency on English
Turning specifically to the legal system, Justice Nagarathna explained why English remains the official language of constitutional courts, including High Courts and the Supreme Court.
In district and subordinate courts, proceedings commonly occur in the local languages—Kannada in Karnataka, Tamil in Tamil Nadu, Telugu in Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, Malayalam in Kerala, and so forth. But at the constitutional level, a uniform language is essential for:
- drafting complex legal documents
- ensuring all judges can understand shared case records
- enabling the transfer of judges across High Courts
- maintaining consistency in judgments and appeals
If High Courts switched entirely to regional languages without a shared framework, it would become extremely difficult to rotate judges or maintain coherence in judicial work. English therefore serves as an integrative and functional tool, not a marker of cultural hierarchy.
Judge Transfers and National Judicial Integration
One of the strongest institutional arguments she gave was regarding the transfer of judges across High Courts. The judiciary functions as a national, not regional, institution. Judges must be able to serve anywhere in the country regardless of their linguistic background.
Without a common working language, transferring a judge from, say, Karnataka to Punjab or from Kerala to Uttar Pradesh would become nearly impossible. English ensures that India’s judicial system operates smoothly as a unified whole.
Her statement—“Otherwise, how do we transfer judges to different High Courts?”—reveals how language plays a critical functional role in preserving judicial integrity and mobility.
The Exchange with the Chief Justice of India
Her comments came as a response after Chief Justice of India Surya Kant addressed a question from a woman lawyer who asked about opportunities for lawyers more proficient in local languages than in English. This is an ongoing concern in many states, particularly for young lawyers who come from rural areas or studied in local-medium institutions.
Justice Nagarathna’s reply did not dismiss the concern. Instead, she clarified the structural necessities within the judiciary, while still acknowledging the need for accessibility. Her appeal for moderation suggests that expectations of language proficiency should not be used to isolate or marginalize professionals or citizens.
Conclusion: Pluralism, Inclusion, and Mutual Respect
Justice Nagarathna’s remarks are ultimately a call to embrace pluralism with empathy and practicality. India’s linguistic richness is a strength, but it also requires thoughtful systems that prevent exclusion.
Her message can be understood as follows:
- Language should not become a barrier to belonging.
- Institutions must balance regional diversity with national cohesion.
- Moderation and sensitivity are essential when discussing language in public life.
- English currently plays an important integrative role, especially in the judiciary.
At its core, she is reminding Indians that diversity is not a challenge to overcome—it is a heritage to respect. And in such a context, no group should feel isolated merely because they speak, or do not speak, a particular language.