New Delhi | July 2025 

The Supreme Court of India has stayed an order passed by the Uttarakhand High Court which questioned whether an Additional District Magistrate (ADM) who allegedly could not communicate fluently in English was fit to be appointed as an Electoral Registration Officer (ERO). The apex court called the observation “premature and unnecessary,” asserting that English fluency is not a constitutional benchmark for eligibility.

 

 

The Uttarakhand High Court, during proceedings related to electoral roll irregularities, asked whether a district official who lacked proficiency in English was administratively competent to function as an ERO. The observation came in response to an incident where the ADM reportedly failed to answer a few English-language questions during court proceedings.

 

The court had noted that the lack of communication in English could affect the quality of electoral responsibilities, especially when dealing with legal or bureaucratic documents. It had sought a clarification from the state government on the ADM’s suitability for the role.

 

 

Hearing a Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by the Uttarakhand Government defending its officer, a Bench headed by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai stayed the High Court’s direction and orally remarked:

 

 

The Supreme Court emphasized that:

• Administrative ability is not contingent on English fluency, especially when the officer is performing duties efficiently.

• Courts must avoid micro-management of appointments unless there is clear illegality or mala fide.

• Constitutional values recognize multilingualism, and local governance often takes place in Hindi or regional languages.

 

 

 

Issue Supreme Court’s Position

English Proficiency Not a criterion for disqualifying an officer

Judicial Oversight Courts must not interfere in service matters without substantive cause

Governance Language India’s Constitution does not make English mandatory for administrative functions