Karnataka HC Says KAT Rules Permit Kannada Pleadings, Restores Applicant’s Case After Kannada Filing Was Returned

In brief

The question

Whether an application before the Tribunal may be filed in Kannada under Rule 9(iii) of the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal Rules of Practice, 1990, notwithstanding Rule 3 of the 1986 Rules.

The court held

The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the Tribunal’s order dated 5 June 2025, and allowed I.A. No. 2 of 2025.

It also directed

It restored O.A. No. 219 of 2025 to the Tribunal’s file and directed the Tribunal to dispose of it in accordance with law.

01Facts

The petitioner filed O.A. No. 219 of 2025 before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal and sought, through I.A. No. 2 of 2025, permission to file his application in Kannada.

¶ 3–4 · pp. 4–5

The Tribunal rejected the request on 5 June 2025, reasoning that applications had to be in English under Rule 3 of the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1986, and returned the application.

¶ 3–4 · pp. 4–5

The petitioner challenged that order, relying on Rule 9(iii) of the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal Rules of Practice, 1990, which permits pleadings and related documents to be typewritten in English or Kannada.

¶ 6, 15 · pp. 5–6, 9

02Issues

i.Whether an application before the Tribunal may be filed in Kannada under Rule 9(iii) of the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal Rules of Practice, 1990, notwithstanding Rule 3 of the 1986 Rules.

¶ 10–17 · pp. 6–10

ii.Whether the Tribunal was justified in rejecting and returning the petitioner’s Kannada-language application.

¶ 18–20 · pp. 10–11

03Law Applied

Rule 3 of the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1986 provides that the Tribunal’s language is English, permits parties to file documents drawn up in Kannada, and allows a Bench, in its discretion, to permit Kannada in the proceedings, while requiring the final order to be in English.

¶ 10 · p. 7

Rule 9(iii) of the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal Rules of Practice, 1990 requires pleadings, affidavits, memoranda, lists of documents and documents filed before the Tribunal to be legibly typewritten in English or Kannada.

¶ 15 · p. 9

Read together, these provisions permit pleadings—including an application—to be filed in Kannada; permission to use Kannada in the proceedings remains discretionary, and the final order must be in English.

¶ 14, 16–19 · pp. 8–11

04Reasoning

The Court held that “proceedings” under Rule 3 include filing an application before the Tribunal.

¶ 13–14 · pp. 8–9

It then read Rule 3 alongside Rule 9(iii), which expressly permits pleadings to be filed in either English or Kannada.

¶ 16–20 · pp. 9–11

Because the petitioner’s application was a pleading and had been filed in Kannada in accordance with Rule 9(iii), the Tribunal erred by treating English as the only permissible language for the application and failed to consider the 1990 Rules.

¶ 16–20 · pp. 9–11

The ruling did not remove the Bench’s discretion over the use of Kannada during proceedings or the requirement that the final order be in English.

¶ 10–12 · pp. 7–8