On Wednesday, the Gujarat High Court rejected a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition advocating for the use of Gujarati in courts across the State.

The bench, consisting of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Pranav Trivedi, noted that a similar petition had been dismissed the previous year, with the High Court's decision later upheld by the Supreme Court.

The petitioner, Vikashkumar Solanki, who represented himself, contended that his PIL presented new grounds not covered in the earlier case. However, the Court disagreed, clarifying that once a petition related to a specific cause of action has been dismissed, a new petition on the same issue cannot be filed.

When Solanki, who was arguing in Hindi, submitted that it was an issue involving fundamental rights, Justice Agarwal said,

"Fundamental right ki baat nai hai yahan par. Language bolna fundamental right hai, apni language ko protect karna fundamental right hai but institution main language ka istimal hona fundamental right nai hai (It is not about fundamental rights here. There is fundamental right to speak a language or protect one's language but there is no fundamental right for use of a particular language in an institution)."

The Court further stated that there was no need to revisit the issue, as the PIL on the matter had already been dismissed. Despite this, Solanki requested a hearing, which the Court denied.

When asked if he was aware of the previous dismissal, Solanki confirmed he was, noting that he had referenced it in his current PIL. However, the order Solanki attached to his petition was not the relevant dismissal but rather an order from an earlier case where his plea had been dismissed due to unresolved objections.

The Court subsequently dismissed the present petition.

"This is the second writ petition filed for the same relief. The first writ petition filed in the nature of PIL by the present petitioner herein has been dismissed vide order dated 27.02.2023, whereby in the absence of the petitioner namely party-in-person, two weeks and no more time was granted to the petitioner to remove the office objection, failing which the matter would be dismissed for want of prosecution without reference to the court," it noted.