Right to response in English

I raised the following query under RTI with the Registrar of Societies, Karnataka:

Along with six of my associates, I am proposing to start a society, which I wish to register with you under the Karnataka Societies Act. On approaching various knowledgeable consultants in the matter, I have been told that you do not entertain applications for registration unless the entire connected set of documentation is made out in Kannada. Now, though five out of the seven of us are Kannadigas, even this lot is not totally comfortable in engaging in official dealings in Kannada, and, as such, we would like to have our entire set of documentation made out in English. Kindly confirm that you can facilitate the same. If you cannot, please advise the reasons, citing relevant sections of the law.

Within just about the one month's time, I received a response, totally in Kannada, citing a government note (copy of which was attached).

The government note essentially directs promotion of the usage of Kannada. But, the legal question proper remained un-addressed, and the Registrar of Societies chose to remain silent in the matter.

As such, I went on appeal to the Chief Information Commissioner (on 28th June) seeking his help in getting the appropriate response to my original query.

I am told there's a wait-list at the CIC's office, and it takes close to 3 to 4 months for a fresh case to be taken up. May be I need to tackle that separately.
 

Last week, I called up Mr Ashok, Under Secretary, KIC, again ( I had been calling up every month) to check on the status of my appeal dated 16th April. Most surprisingly, he told me that they had already cleared all April appeals. On further checking, he informed that the summons had been issued to me on the 2nd Nov (by ordinary post), for the hearing on 3rd Dec, and with my absenting myself, the order dismissing my appeal had been issued ex-parte, and copy of the same posted to me (again by ordinary post) on the 10th Dec. When I asked how come the summons (as also the order) was sent by ordinary post, he responded saying 'that was their practice' (The order reached me last week, but the summons hasn't reached even upto now).

While I propose to be challenging this aspect saying that I was denied a fair hearing, the operative part of the dismissal order appears to base itself on the decision of the Goa bench of Bombay High Court in writ petition no 419 0f 2007 (in the case of Dr Celsa Pinto vs Goa State Information Commission), supposedly stating that 'question and clarification cannot be asked under RTI Act', my request supposedly being for 'nothing but clarification'.

I am now left to challenge this in the High Court. I'll first seek an opinion from a lawyer friend, practicing in the High Court, before going about it.

Also, I don't know if my appeal of 28th June, in the matter of the RoS (check above), will also suffer the same fate. But, there they can't go by the same argument, if my understanding is right.

Meanwhile, encouraged by the ToI report cited here, I decided to approach the National Advisory Council directly to seek redressal in the matter, since it is likely to be a country-wide issue. Let's see how things evolve.  
 

@ Bheema  -  Please understand correctly what I am asking. Nowhere have I asked for discontinuation of the promotion of Kannada. All I am asking for is a response in English, which presumably is an official language of the state, and over which I have better mastery than Kannada. That I believe is my right. Now, if the government of a country like Switzerland provides you the choice of corresponding in four different languages, as also its official documentation made out in all four of them, why can't the GoK have it in English atleast? On the other hand, if the GoK is going to be labelling English as a foreign language, and is eventually planning to phase it out of official usage, let them declare so. Let's see if it has the support of the people.

I have a working knowledge of Kannada, like I expect the majority of people in Benagaluru, including the many sons of soil. In this globalised world, I for one would like to gain greater mastery of the English language in order to acquire more knowledge on all matters that interest me from across the world, than be limited by the mastery of just Kannada. As such, I have no intention of polishing up my knowledge of Kannada much beyond the present level, which is good enough even to follow the odd Kannada movie, that I see.

All the same, I shall fully support all pursuits towards promotion of Kannada, and the local culture through that. And, not just Kannada, but even Tulu, Konkani, Coorgi, these being the other mother tongues of sizable sections of Bangaloreans/ Kannadiga's.

What is happening currently is the blatant mis-use of Kannada by government officials to deny information through obfuscation. We ourselves are the victims of this, with the office of the RoS sending us around in circles, while attempting to register as a society, since even a 'Kuvempu' will not be able to manage the language technicalities they are invoking.

The language issue has been discussed in greater detail here, as also elsewhere. In this thread, let's confine ourselves to the right I am seeking to establish.
 

Having reached a sort of a dead-end in the matter, I sought and obtained a meeting with Justice Santosh Hegde yesterday to seek his opinion on my stance, and, if in agreement, advise on the further course of action.

He not only agreed with my stance, but also added that I should be pursuing the matter in the High Court, in overall national interest, since, by not according you a response in English (an acknowledged official language of the state), the state is in violation of Art 14 (equality) and 19 (right to move freely throughout the territory of India; to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India) of the Indian Constitution. When I cited the "Mary Kom" example (check here), he commented that that as a perfect case in point. He also emphasised on the need to curb linguistic, cultural, and religious chauvinism and intolerance.

Well, with such an endorsement from the country's icon of propriety, I guess, the direction forward has become fairly clear. I am certainly moving on it.

PS: I had obtained Justice Hegde's permission before making this post, though not of the exact text. Since the matter involves quasi-judicial bodies, I wish to add that Justice Hegde is not to be held liable for any inaccuracies.