Supreme Court’s Initiative to Fix Justice Lost in Translation: Lawyers to Double as Translators
Introduction: A Novel Step Toward Linguistic Precision in Justice
In a landmark administrative reform, the Supreme Court of India has launched an unprecedented initiative to address one of the judiciary’s long-standing challenges — the poor quality of English translations of judicial records originally written in Indian languages. Recognising the direct impact of inaccurate translations on the dispensation of justice, the apex court has decided to engage practising lawyers as translators.
This move seeks to combine legal acumen with linguistic accuracy, ensuring that translations of pleadings, judgments, and other documents preserve the “true meaning and spirit” of the original records.
Background: The Problem of Inaccurate Judicial Translations
The problem of inaccurate translations has persisted for decades in the Indian judicial system. Many trial court records, particularly from lower courts in states where proceedings are conducted in regional languages, reach the Supreme Court in poorly translated English versions. These inaccuracies often distort facts, alter legal interpretations, and delay justice.
The Supreme Court currently relies on around 60–70 official translators. However, their workload has drastically increased since they are also responsible for translating Supreme Court judgments into regional languages under the SUVAS (Supreme Court Vidhik Anuvaad Software) project.
Faced with rising delays and inconsistent quality, the court has now authorised the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) to build a parallel pool of lawyer-translators.
Formation of the Lawyer-Translator Pool
As part of this initiative, 69 lawyers have been shortlisted by SCAORA to provide professional translation services in 13 Indian languages, including Hindi, Marathi, Tamil, Malayalam, Bengali, Punjabi, Kannada, Telugu, Bhojpuri, Assamese, Odia, Gujarati, and Urdu.
These lawyer-translators will be separately remunerated, marking the first time in history that practising advocates are being formally compensated for translation work. Each translator is required to submit a written undertaking certifying the accuracy of every translated document.
The translation fee has been fixed at ₹100 per legal-size page, payable directly by the lawyers engaging their services.
According to Advocate Vipin Nair, President of SCAORA, this move originated from an order passed on March 18, 2025, when the Supreme Court bench, then led by Justice J.K. Maheshwari, highlighted serious inconsistencies in translated records.
Judicial Observations: The Need for Faithful Translation
In a recent judgment dated October 16, 2025, a bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice P.K. Mishra underscored that translation is not a mechanical task but a matter of preserving legal essence.
The case involved a property dispute from Maharashtra, where the translated version of a civil court’s Marathi judgment was found to have distorted the meaning. Justice Karol remarked:
“In matters of law, words are of indispensable importance. Each word, every comma has an impact on the overall understanding of the matter.”
The court observed that accurate translation was fundamental to ensuring fair adjudication, particularly in appeals where the original records are unavailable in English.
Previous Directions and Institutional Response
The issue was first formally raised in the Supreme Court’s March 18, 2025 order, which criticised the poor standard of translations filed by Advocates-on-Record (AoRs). The bench noted:
“Every day, we are experiencing such problems wherein the translations filed are not accurate and correct. Accurate translation is essential for litigant, court, and advocate.”
Following this, on April 15, 2025, SCAORA informed the court that the then Chief Justice of India had approved the creation of a dedicated pool of lawyers to support translation work.
By August 14, 2025, SCAORA had circulated the list of empanelled lawyer-translators to the court registry and members of the bar.
Integration with AI: Balancing Technology and Human Insight
The initiative complements the ongoing technological efforts under SUVAS, launched in 2019 to automate translation of judgments into regional languages using AI-assisted tools.
As of December 2024, the Supreme Court had translated over 36,324 judgments into Hindi and 42,765 judgments into 17 regional languages, according to data shared by the Ministry of Law and Justice in the Lok Sabha.
However, while SUVAS represents technological progress, the new policy reflects the court’s recognition that AI cannot replace legal understanding. Only those with legal training can capture nuances of statutory interpretation, precedent, and procedural context.
Statutory and Constitutional Framework
-
Article 348(1) of the Constitution of India mandates that proceedings in the Supreme Court and High Courts shall be conducted in English, making accurate translation a constitutional necessity.
-
Article 120 and Article 210 allow Parliament and State Legislatures to use Hindi or regional languages, subject to translation into English for official purposes.
-
The Official Languages Act, 1963, regulates the use of English for official judicial and legislative purposes.
-
Supreme Court Rules, 2013, and Order XVIII, Rule 4 CPC also mandate that documents not in English must be submitted with accurate translations.
These provisions collectively establish that linguistic accuracy is essential to procedural fairness and the right to a fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Judicial Precedents Emphasising Accurate Records
-
State of Bihar v. Kripalu Shankar (1987) — The Supreme Court held that judicial records must reflect precise and unambiguous meanings to ensure fairness in appeals.
-
Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel (1985) — Stressed that procedural safeguards, including correct communication of orders, are integral to Article 21 rights.
-
M. Nagaraj v. Union of India (2006) — Recognised that legal interpretation depends on exactness of words and context, reinforcing the importance of accuracy.
These precedents collectively affirm that poor translation, leading to misinterpretation, violates the constitutional guarantee of fair procedure.
Impact and Future Prospects
The decision to involve practising lawyers as translators bridges a critical gap between linguistic translation and legal interpretation. It ensures that appeals, particularly from non-English-speaking regions, are adjudicated based on accurate records.
By integrating human expertise with AI tools like SUVAS, the Supreme Court is setting a hybrid model for linguistic justice — one that may soon become a global benchmark.
The success of this initiative could pave the way for similar practices across High Courts and even District Courts, where linguistic diversity often poses challenges in appellate processes.
Conclusion: A Step Towards Linguistic Justice
The Supreme Court’s latest initiative is more than an administrative reform — it is a constitutional reaffirmation of the right to fair and comprehensible justice.
By empowering lawyers to act as translators, the Court acknowledges that language is not just a medium of law but a cornerstone of justice. This move ensures that no litigant’s right is lost in translation and that every word — in every language — carries its rightful weight before the law.

Comments
Post a Comment