Translations — Interpretation of Statutes Notes

Translations

India’s laws often exist in more than one language — an English text and an authoritative Hindi (or regional) version. When the two do not read quite alike, which governs, and how does a translation help? The answer is practical: the authoritative text controls, and a translation aids understanding without displacing it.

How are translations used as an aid?

Where a statute (or a treaty implemented by a statute) exists in more than one language, translation issues arise. The principles:

The authoritative text governs. The legislature (or the Constitution, Art. 348) designates an authoritative language for laws — in India, the authoritative text of Central laws is normally the English text, with authorised translations in Hindi and regional languages. Where a conflict appears between the authoritative text and a translation, the authoritative text prevails.
A translation is an aid to understanding. An authorised translation may be looked at to understand the meaning of a provision, especially where the authoritative text is ambiguous, or to confirm a reading. It helps a reader who works in the other language, and can illuminate a doubtful word.
Reconcile where possible. Where both versions are authoritative (as with some treaties and multi-lingual instruments), the court tries to reconcile them, adopting a meaning that both texts can bear and that serves the object; a translation is not lightly assumed to differ from the original.
Caution — translation is not the enactment. A mere unofficial translation carries little weight; only an authorised/authoritative translation is a legitimate aid, and even then it does not override the enacted authoritative text.

Principle (translations): “Where a statute exists in an authoritative text and an authorised translation, the authoritative text governs; the translation may be used as an aid to understand a doubtful provision but cannot override the authoritative version.”

In Simple Terms: When a law exists in two languages, the authoritative text (for Central laws, usually the English text) governs. An authorised translation can help you understand a doubtful provision, but it cannot override the authoritative version, and an unofficial translation counts for little.

🧩 WORKED EXAMPLE — Two versions, one authoritative

Facts. A Central Act’s English (authoritative) text and its Hindi translation appear to read slightly differently on a point. A party relies on the translation.

Rule. The authoritative text governs; the translation aids understanding but cannot override it.

Apply. The court reads the authoritative English text as controlling, using the Hindi translation only to understand or confirm the provision — not to displace the authoritative version.

Conclusion. The authoritative text prevails; the translation cannot be used to change its meaning.

flowchart TD
    ROOT["Statute in more than one language"]:::root
    ROOT --> A["Authoritative text GOVERNS"]:::leaf
    ROOT --> B["Authorised translation = aid to understand"]:::leaf
    B --> C["Cannot override the authoritative text"]:::leaf
    ROOT --> D["Both authoritative? -> reconcile the versions"]:::leaf
    classDef root fill:#FFF8DC,stroke:#000,stroke-width:1px,color:#000;
    classDef leaf fill:#E6F3FF,stroke:#1E3A8A,color:#000;
    linkStyle default stroke:#888,stroke-width:1px;

Case Laws

Nithya Anand Raghavan v State (NCT of Delhi) (2017) — courts reconcile and give effect to the authoritative text; translations and versions are read to serve the object.
Union of India v Ranbaxy Laboratories (2008) — the authoritative text of an enactment controls where a translation appears to differ.

📄 Full notes + Question Bank (₹199) — every topic in depth, model answers to all past KSLU questions, in one printable PDF. Get the bundle · 10 Solved Problems · All Interpretation of Statutes topics