The Madras High Court Today (July 3rd) declined to stay the operation of the three new criminal laws that came into force on July 1 replacing the Indian Penal Code, Code of Criminal Procedure and the Indian Evidence Act. It sought the response of the Central government to the plea challenging the Sanskrit/ Hindi names given to the three laws – the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
CHENNAI: The Madras High Court on Wednesday declined to stay the operation of the three new criminal laws that came into force on July 1, replacing the Indian Penal Code, the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the Indian Evidence Act.
However, the court has sought the Central government’s response to a plea challenging the Hindi and Sanskrit names given to these laws: the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam.
A Division Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice R Mahadevan and Justice Mohammed Shaffiq issued a notice to the Central government regarding the plea to strike down the Hindi and Sanskrit names of the new laws as unconstitutional.
The Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was filed by B Ramkumar Adityan, a lawyer based in Thoothukudi. Adityan argued that the nomenclature is unconstitutional and violates Article 348(1)(a) of the Constitution.
According to the petitioner,
“Out of the 28 states and eight union territories in the country, only nine states and two union territories have Hindi as their official language.”
He further contended that Hindi is not the mother tongue of 56.37% of Indians, yet the union government has assigned Hindi and Sanskrit names to the new laws. This, he claimed, contravenes Article 348(1)(a) of the Constitution, which mandates that all proceedings in the Supreme Court and High Courts should be conducted in English.
Representing the Central government, Additional Solicitor General ARL Sundaresan argued that the use of English alphabets in the Hindi names of the new laws was the will of Parliament. He stated,
“People will get used to these names eventually. It is a matter of time. But these names do not breach any constitutional rights or citizens’ fundamental rights. These names are not in violation of Article 348.”
Despite Sundaresan’s arguments, the court issued a notice to the Centre but refused to stay the enforcement of the new laws. The case highlights the ongoing debate over language use in official legislation and its implications for inclusivity and constitutional mandates.
The court’s decision to seek a response from the Central government underscores the need to balance linguistic representation with constitutional requirements, ensuring that legal nomenclature remains accessible and representative of the diverse linguistic landscape of India.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on New Criminal Laws
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
