Article 251 reads that the national language of Pakistan is Urdu, and arrangements shall be made for its being used for official and other purposes within fifteen years from the commencing day. (2) Subject to clause (1), the English language may be used for official purposes until arrangements are made for its replacement by Urdu. (3) Without prejudice to the status of the National language, a Provincial Assembly may by law prescribe measures for the teaching, promotion and use of a provincial language in addition to the national language."
The court ruled that if, subsequent to the judgment, any public bodies or public officials continue to violate the constitutional command contained in Article 251, citizens who suffer a tangible loss directly and foreseeably resulting from such violation shall be entitled to enforce any civil rights which may accrue to them on this account.
The judgement authored by Chief Justice of Pakistan Justice Jawwad S. Khawaja ruled that the petitioner, Kowkab Iqbal, had submitted that the state and the government are deliberately not implementing Article 251 of the Constitution and on account of the non-implementation of this provision a societal and linguistic divide has been created in society.
The court directed that the Federal Government as well as Provincial Governments should co-ordinate with each other for uniformity in the "rasmulkhat" for the national language. The verdict ruled that in the competitive examinations at federal level the recommendations of government bodies should be considered by the Government for implementation without unnecessary delay.
The court directed that judgements in cases relating to public interest litigation and judgments enunciating a principle of law in terms of Article 189 must be translated into Urdu and should be published in line with Article 251 of the Constitution. Similarly, the judgement ruled that in court cases government departments should make all reasonable efforts to submit their replies in Urdu to enable citizens to effectively enforce their legal rights.
The court also directed its concerned office to send copies of the verdict to all the federal as well as provincial secretaries, who are to take immediate steps for enforcement of Article 251 in line with Article 5 of the Constitution. The court ruled that concerned Federal and Provincial Secretaries shall submit reports showing compliance with the above orders. The first report of progress should be fixed in Court within three months.
The court observed that what is also lost on the Government is that Article 251 is not a stand-alone provision;. this provision is directly linked to the realisation of various fundamental rights protected by the Constitution, especially the right to dignity (Article 14), the right to equal treatment under the law (Article 25), and the right to education (Article 25A).
The court ruled that it is a corollary of a person's right to dignity enshrined in the Constitution that his or her language (national or provincial) should be respected and recognised by the State which exercises authority over him or her. Likewise, it is a corollary of a person's right to equality that he or she must not be denied access to economic and political opportunities because he or she is only conversant in the languages recognised and referred to in Article 251 and not conversant with the English language. "When the state refuses to recognise this it denies to its citizens equality of status and opportunity and also their dignity in a very real sense," says the judgement.
The court noted that in the governance of the Federation and the Provinces there is hardly any necessity for the use of the colonial language which cannot be understood by the public at large. "Even for many civil servants and public officials, who may have received education in English, this language would in most cases, not be the language most used by them," the verdict said, adding many officials are therefore forced to spend time on attempting to initiate and take decisions in a language which they are not entirely comfortable with.
The court ruled that the time thus spent is quite wasteful because a lot of energy is dedicated to deciphering the language of the noting (which could have been easily drafted in the Urdu language) itself rather than understanding its content or substance. "This wasteful exercise at times results in absurd and farcical outcomes which would be wholly avoided by use of the National language," says the judgement. The court ruled that it is not at all the object of this judgement to denigrate the importance of English as a language used in international commerce and other activities which require the use of that language.
"The point before us as noted above is very different. Article 5(2) of the Constitution commands that "[o]bedience to the Constitution and law is the inviolable obligation of every citizen ...". We are tasked to both obey the Constitution and to enforce it, and we cannot shy away from our obligation to the same while the nation suffers even if some may (from habit or training) find it more convenient to continue using the colonial language, the verdict concluded.