A dedicated section containing judgments/orders of the Supreme Court translated to Gujarati using Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools shall be the new feature in the Gujarat High Court website.

The High Court’s Registrar General on Thursday issued a circular announcing this decision.

The facility was launched under the guidance of the Artificial Intelligence Assisted Legal Translation Advisory Committee of the apex court, with the approval of the Acting Chief Justice AJ Desai, and other judges of the High Court’s IT Committee.

The circular said that under this new section on the homepage of the High Court website, the Translation Cell of the High Court of Gujarat would be directly uploading the Gujarati version of the orders/judgments through a software mechanism developed by the IT Cell of the High Court.

The Circular also added that the English version would also be directly accessible from this section for ready reference of the users.

To begin with, six Supreme Court orders in matters relating to Gujarat and involving public interest will be uploaded on the website with the assistance of the Gujarat State Judicial Academy.

Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud had recently said that the process of releasing Supreme Court judgments in regional languages has begun

Around 2,900 judgments have been translated into vernacular languages till now.

Kerala, Delhi, Bombay and Allahabad High Courts have already started publishing their judgments in the vernacular of their respective States.

Asim Pandya on Monday resigned from the post of President of Gujarat High Court Advocates Association, citing lack of support and stiff resistance to his proposal on adding Gujarati as an additional language in the Gujarat High Court, along with English.

The Senior Advocate had made a representation before state Governor Acharya Devvrat on September 8, seeking introduction of Gujarati as an additional language of the Gujarat High Court.

Pandya said in his resignation letter that his personal ideology had been at the receiving end of many members, who were opposing the same.

The Senior Advocate said he would rather give up his post of GHCAA President than his personal ideology, which he claimed, was in line with the aims and objectives of the Association’s Constitution, besides being in the larger interest of litigants and the legal system.

Regarding the argument made by 62 percent lawyers of GHCAA that the use of Gujarati would result in sacrificing the dignity and decorum of the High Court, Pandya said he was not able to appreciate the argument, since it looked unconvincing.

Pandya revealed that he was planning to initiate another campaign to restore the original system evolved at the Bombay Bar Association (Original Side) of recognising advocates, who were senior at the Bar and have reasonably good practice, and accepting them on the roll of Senior Advocates on voluntary basis.

The lawyer opined that a Senior Advocate should be based on objective criteria only, excluding subjectivity, which was present in the current system under Section 16 of the Advocates Act, 1961.

Pandya, while stating that the Bar was likely to oppose this campaign also, observed that it would be in his best interest to resign from the post and pursue his individual ideologies.

He further said that he was not sacrificing the post of GHCAA chief for his personal ideology, since he accepted the post to serve the members of the Bar and not to rule them.

Observing that a person may sacrifice a particular post, if he was exploiting the same for his personal gain, Pandya said he was not losing anything.

He concluded by expressing gratitude to those who supported him as GHCAA chief while seeking pardon from those, who he said, believed that he acted in furtherance of his personal interest and hurt them.