Section 137 — Language of subordinate Courts
Which language a subordinate court works in. The language each court used when the Code began continues — until the State Government directs otherwise (1). The State Government may declare the language, and the script, of any such court (2). Writing other than the recording of evidence may be in English, but a party or pleader who does not know English is entitled to a translation (3).
How to read Section 137
Continuity (1)
Each subordinate court keeps the language it had when the Code commenced — a stable default — until the State Government changes it.
State Government’s power (2)
The State Government may declare the language of any such court, and the character (script) in which applications and proceedings are written.
English & translation (3)
Writing (not the recording of evidence) may be in English — but a non-English party gets a translation on request, the court deciding who pays.
The bare Act
(1) The language which, on the commencement of this Code, is the language of any Court subordinate to a High Court shall continue to be the language of such subordinate Court until the State Government otherwise directs.
(2) The State Government may declare what shall be the language of any such Court and in what character applications to and proceedings in such Courts shall be written.
(3) Where this Code requires or allows anything other than the recording of evidence to be done in writing in any such Court, such writing may be in English; but if any party or his pleader is unacquainted with English a translation into the language of the Court shall, at his request, be supplied to him; and the Court shall make such order as it thinks fit in respect of the payment of the costs of such translation.
→ Three steps: (1) the existing court language continues by default; (2) the State Government may change it and fix the script; (3) for writing other than evidence, English is permitted, balanced by a translation right for those who do not read it. (Some States have recast sub-section (3) by amendment — see below.)
State amendment
Key terms decoded
The official language in which a court conducts and records its business — applications to it and proceedings in it.
The district and civil courts below the High Court — the courts whose language this section governs.
The existing language continues by default; it changes only when the State Government directs — the power of change rests there.
The script in which applications and proceedings are written — the State Government may fix this too (e.g. Devanagari).
Writing in court apart from the deposition record — this writing may be in English.
A party or pleader unacquainted with English may request a translation into the court’s language; the court orders who bears the cost.
The picture — default, change, and the English allowance
§ 137 keeps the courts working in a settled language while leaving the State Government free to set it — and tempers the practical use of English in writing with a guaranteed translation for those who cannot read it.
Part by part — the three sub-sections
Sub-section (1) is about stability: courts do not change working language on their own — whatever each used when the Code began simply continues, pending a State direction.
The language which, on the commencement of this Code, is the language of any Court subordinate to a High Court shall continue to be the language of such subordinate Court…
The court’s existing language is simply carried forward — no fresh choice is needed.
…until the State Government otherwise directs.
The default lasts only until the State Government acts — the power to change rests with the State Government, not the court.
Sub-section (2) gives the State Government two linked powers — over which language a court uses, and over the script in which applications to it and proceedings in it are written.
The State Government may declare what shall be the language of any such Court…
An express power to fix or change the working language of any subordinate court.
…and in what character applications to and proceedings in such Courts shall be written.
It may also fix the script — the “character” — for the court’s written applications and proceedings.
Sub-section (3) is a practical compromise: English may be used for court writing (other than evidence), but it must not shut out a party who cannot read it — hence the translation right.
Where this Code requires or allows anything other than the recording of evidence to be done in writing in any such Court, such writing may be in English…
For writing other than the evidence record, English is permitted — useful, but not compulsory.
…but if any party or his pleader is unacquainted with English a translation into the language of the Court shall, at his request, be supplied to him…
A party or pleader who does not know English may demand a translation into the court’s language — access is preserved.
…and the Court shall make such order as it thinks fit in respect of the payment of the costs of such translation.
Who pays for the translation is left to the court’s discretion, case by case.
How the three sub-sections flow
A settled language — the State’s power to set it — and English, fairly used
Connected provisions
Section 137 sits in Part XI’s process & machinery group. It fixes the working language of the subordinate courts; the next provision, § 138, lets a High Court require evidence to be recorded in English — the natural companion to § 137(3).